quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan the Man:
"God is the same irrespective of whether you pray to him in a temple, church or mosque,"

---

This is of course true.

I'm not sure that all of the worshippers in those temples, churches and mosques have the same conception of what it is they are praying to though...
 

---

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :
 
Interesting. Do you actually think that Ganesh is a real, divine entity? If he is, do Jesus and he get along? Or is Ganesh just Jesus in an elephant suit? Or are Jesus and Ganesh actually something else: one disguised as a first century jew, the other disguised as a large Proboscidean?
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
To expand, here is a set of propositions for UU and Society of Friends types

We should:

- recognise as fellow travellers and worshippers of the true God all those who seek to walk in the light of Love

- reject the teachings of those who declare the nature of God to be other than that of Love, whether they do so in the name of Christianity or another religious tradition

- be mindful not to fall into the trap of appropriating other people's traditions into our own metanarrative rather than letting them tell their own stories

Do these propositions apply? And if so, how does this affect Anglican priests with statues of Ganesh?
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
This was in the yesterday's edition of my paper. I found it incredibly encouraging and shall have to seek out his book, mentioned in the last paragraph, and look out for his next when it is published.

---

He must have a neck like that elephant idol, otherwise how could he stand with such a humongous millstone tied to it? Oh wait, now he has fallen to his knees. But hold on, it's just to worship blasphemously. Something seems to be carrying his millstone for him. It's hard to see what it is... a serpent?! Must be another Hindu deity, I guess.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Interesting. Do you actually think that Ganesh is a real, divine entity? If he is, do Jesus and he get along? Or is Ganesh just Jesus in an elephant suit? Or are Jesus and Ganesh actually something else: one disguised as a first century jew, the other disguised as a large Proboscidean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Interesting. Do you actually think that Ganesh is a real, divine entity? If he is, do Jesus and he get along? Or is Ganesh just Jesus in an elephant suit? Or are Jesus and Ganesh actually something else: one disguised as a first century jew, the other disguised as a large Proboscidean?

---

Thanks for this. You point up in the most charming and humourous way the heresies involved for an orthodox Christian in this type of thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
hatless

(Respect to your recently changed sig BTW. Part of the story of my life.)

A question for you. Do you see a difference between inter-faith dialogue and inter-faith worship? (I include prayer in worship because prayers are offered to God). I'm fine with dialogue but inter-faith worship seems to me, to put it at its mildest, very confusing. I think that's the standard Anglican line anyway so there must be some issue of church order for David Hart. Of course that is a matter between him and his bishop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
For those with short memories, Catweazle, the big matey of Cant, before being enthroned dressed up as a Druid priest so that his friends could honour him. So if the big matey as head of Anglican can dress up as a pagan priest, why should we be surprised with an Anglican little matey placing a pagan image outside his house and offer prayers. His is only hedging his bets on salvation.

---

What exactly are you talking about?
 

---

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :
 
In all fairness to Rowen I'm pretty sure that the 'Druidism' that he was/is involved in is a poetry and bardism rather than Pagainism per se.
 

---

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Here is some information about the Gorsedd and the Eisteddfod. Suffice it to say that the Gorsedd is not pagan. If you want an analogy, think of it like being given a knighthood (only without the unpleasant militaristic overtones ).

[ 28. August 2006, 10:27: Message edited by: seasick ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Hatless

quote:

---

Gregory won't like this, but an Indian friend suggested that the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is helpfully encouraging to syncretism, because it says the Spirit proceeds from just the Father. If the Spirit does not 'wear the name' of Jesus, then there is greater liberty to see the Spirit's activity in other faiths, under a different name. In an Indian context where Christianity finds it natural to put on Indian clothes this is very useful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
He's a serious, thoughtful and very well informed man, and a typically 'nice' Anglican vicar.

---

1. Moses: "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:2-6, RSV)
2. Christ: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him." (John 14:6-7, RSV)
3. Anglicans: "Whatever. Another gin & tonic?"

quote:

---

The negative comments on this thread don't seem at all charming and humorous to me, but curiously extreme. I smell hate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Extreme? Surely not? Hate? No. Just embarrassment. I actually feel ashamed to share the same office as the man. What a ridiculous individual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
Here is some information about the Gorsedd and the Eisteddfod. Suffice it to say that the Gorsedd is not pagan. If you want an analogy, think of it like being given a knighthood (only without the unpleasant militaristic overtones ).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

Oh really! He ought to reliquish his Anglican orders and go do his things with the UUs, or perhaps he'd find a place amongst the Society of Friends, but this man has no place amongst the clergy of an orthodox Christian communion.

Actually, I think he ought to be deposed, if this report is accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

To expand, here is a set of propositions for UU and Society of Friends types

We should:

- recognise as fellow travellers and worshippers of the true God all those who seek to walk in the light of Love

- reject the teachings of those who declare the nature of God to be other than that of Love, whether they do so in the name of Christianity or another religious tradition

- be mindful not to fall into the trap of appropriating other people's traditions into our own metanarrative rather than letting them tell their own stories

Do these propositions apply? And if so, how does this affect Anglican priests with statues of Ganesh?

---

Good set of propositions. As a Friend, I would probably take out the word "should" since one basis of our perspective is direction from the Divine Light (or Spirit) as individually revealed--the Light, incidently, shines in each of us, so by denying others the right to express themselves as they are led, we are denying the Spirit.

That's my take on your questions.

As already mentioned, we wouldn't use idols for worship....unless so led

sabine

[ 28. August 2006, 13:33: Message edited by: sabine ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

Oh really! He ought to reliquish his Anglican orders and go do his things with the UUs, or perhaps he'd find a place amongst the Society of Friends, but this man has no place amongst the clergy of an orthodox Christian communion.

Actually, I think he ought to be deposed, if this report is accurate.

---

And you're in charge of this, how? btw, what makes you think that we Quakers would pray using an idol?

sabine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Young Dave Marshall, one question, why would you be embarrassed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
He's a serious, thoughtful and very well informed man, and a typically 'nice' Anglican vicar.

---

I'm sure Arius was also a serious, thoughtful and very well informed man. But I keep forgetting that Christian revelation occured in three stages:

1. Moses: "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:2-6, RSV)
2. Christ: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him." (John 14:6-7, RSV)
3. Anglicans: "Whatever. Another gin & tonic?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Young Dave Marshall, one question, why would you be embarrassed

---

Matey, I'm not saying I understand the Hindu connection. I was commenting on the parallel between m.t's rather extreme variant of conservative evangelicalism and David Hart's alternative at another edge of the theological spectrum.

I'm personally probably at yet another theological extreme within the Church, but I try to make a point of remembering that we all might be wrong and that Hart may simply be further down the road of understanding than I am.

So while I consider m.t's views often unhelpful, sometimes potentially damaging, and usually plain wrong, however much of a disservice I think they do to the office of priest I'll do my best to avoid dismissing him personally in the way he seems happy to do with David Hart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Extreme? Surely not? Hate? No. Just embarrassment. I actually feel ashamed to share the same office as the man. What a ridiculous individual.

---

It might be worth noting that if I lived in a parish with a priest who thought and spoke as you do here, I would have similar thoughts about him or her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
He seems like a good bloke to me.

Anmyone secure enough in their own faith has nothing to fear from the faiths of others and much to learn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HangarQueen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
He seems like a good bloke to me.

Anmyone secure enough in their own faith has nothing to fear from the faiths of others and much to learn.

---

But which faith, exactly, does he profess? I can't tell from that article whether he's a Hindu, a Christian or a Muslim. Seems he doesn't know either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I did not post this hoping in any way to wind people up but because I read the article and found it interesting. I thought it might lead to a similarly interesting discussion here but I see that in the majority reasoned argument is out of the window and what I shall politely describe as firmly held views of entrenched positions are to the fore.

I suppose I'm not surprised, but I am saddened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:

Would the conversation be more 'interesting' if it moved towards an affirmation of this man's ship-wrecking of the Christian faith?

---

Is the Christian faith on such shakey ground that one man engaging in a cross-cultural, inter-faith practice is going ship wreck it?

I think some of the responses here are far more defensive than this incident calls for.

I pretty sure Christianity is safe for the moment.

sabine

[ 28. August 2006, 15:04: Message edited by: sabine ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I think the problem here is that some people on the ship don't understand the difference between an adherent to the Trinitarian Christian religion of the Bible and the Historical Tradition (phrasing this to be as broad and inclusive as possible) and those on the outskirts of historical Christianity. This is not a matter of religious co-existance or cultural pluralism, but of the integrity of our own faith. No one who subscribes to the formularies of Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or the confessional classical protestant traditions is going to be able to give approbation IMO to a public act of worship to a deity other than YHWH, whom Christians know as the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I did not post this hoping in any way to wind people up but because I read the article and found it interesting. I thought it might lead to a similarly interesting discussion here but I see that in the majority reasoned argument is out of the window and what I shall politely describe as firmly held views of entrenched positions are to the fore.

I suppose I'm not surprised, but I am saddened.

---

Would the conversation be more 'interesting' if it moved towards an affirmation of this man's ship-wrecking of the Christian faith? Why should I approve of what I consider to be idolotry? For goodness sake! The picture shows an Anglican priest offering incense (I think?) to an idol: an image made by human hands.

This isn't rocket science; the man's breaking the very first commandment. He's an high-handed idolator. Any sunday school child from my church would be able to see the error in that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I think that this is quite close to a personal attack.

---

quote:

---

Is it the fact that it's a Hindu statue that bothers people?

I have attended RC churches and lit candles in front of statues. One of them was a statue of Jesus.

So is it idolitry if the statue of God is in a form that we're not familiar with?

---

quote:

---

Is the Christian faith on such shakey ground that one man engaging in a cross-cultural, inter-faith practice is going ship wreck it?

I think some of the responses here are far more defensive than this incident calls for.

I pretty sure Christianity is safe for the moment. [Smile]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I think that this is quite close to a personal attack.

---

Possibly. The point, though, was to highlight what seemed to me the unpleasant way you were ready to pass judgement on someone you presumably have never met and to whom the Church has given authority and responsibility, as it has to you.

It's about respect, I think, valuing someone as a person, whatever their views, and I'd have thought also as a priest in this case. Your post seemed totally devoid of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think the problem here is that some people on the ship don't understand the difference between an adherent to the Trinitarian Christian religion of the Bible and the Historical Tradition (phrasing this to be as broad and inclusive as possible) and those on the outskirts of historical Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dosey:
To anyone that has an open mind: -

Beyond Religion

This guy has a good point in his podcast...

---

quote:

---

Still haven't figured out why some people are so angry--in the grand scheme of really bad things people can do, things that not only hurt Christianity but also hurt human beings, this is a pretty tiny offense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
This isn't rocket science; the man's breaking the very first commandment. He's an high-handed idolator. Any sunday school child from my church would be able to see the error in that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Have you met me, Dave?

---

quote:

---

Do you respect me, Dave?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Yeah. try using that excuse if you ever commit adultery. Well, darling, everyone knows that you're my only wife; yes, I has sex with a prostitute, but I was really making love to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think the problem here is that some people on the ship don't understand the difference between an adherent to the Trinitarian Christian religion of the Bible and the Historical Tradition (phrasing this to be as broad and inclusive as possible) and those on the outskirts of historical Christianity.

---

I don't think so. I understand the difference, I'm on the outskirts, but I'm also a baptised and confirmed member of the Church of England.

If the Church only has space for what you and your fellow 'adherents' deem acceptable, how can it claim to be catholic? You have no more verifiable knowledge of the ultimate realities involved than I do.

If we're serious about including God in our personal and communal realities, it has to be baseed on his way *and* her way *and* my way. Anything else is a perversion of catholicity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yes, I would agree that YHWH is the recipient of all true worship. But as St Paul observed, we know who it is we worship; and it's not some shadow amongst a pantheon or a religion that does not reflect the salvation history that we know in the Person of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Homage to Ganesh may be a fine starting point for Hindus, but it's also the proper starting point for devout Hindus to become disciples of Christ God; not for Christians to play at polytheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:

I question why sabine, WW and others supporting Mr. Hart's actions are so quick to point fingers at those who disagree with them, calling them out as hateful and fearful. I've read every post here so far and neither Young Bingo nor LSK, for example, have posted anything hating and fearful (as I understand those terms.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
I do sense a defensiveness running through this thread (some of it mine) that seems to go beyond the "crime" in question, especially when you consider the world at large and how much suffering has been put into that world by actions other than burning insense in front of a statue.

sabine

---

quote:

---

I do sense a defensiveness running through this thread (some of it mine) that seems to go beyond the "crime" in question, especially when you consider the world at large and how much suffering has been put into that world by actions other than burning insense in front of a statue.

---

quote:

---

Hindus are not polytheists. They worship one God, Brahman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
Missed the edit window...

In fact, the finger pointing toward someone who is different and doesn't agree actually started with the second post, not with WW and myself.

Be that as it may, I'm not up to being in a black/white argument over inter-faith matters.

Peace to you all.

sabine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dosey:
To anyone that has an open mind: -

Beyond Religion

This guy has a good point in his podcast...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Catholicity does not mean everyone believe anything they wish and it's still a legitimate reflection of the Christian Faith.

---

quote:

---

There is a generally agreed corpus of Christian belief, comprised of Holy Scripture and the formulations of the Oecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, if nothing else.

---

quote:

---

The Church is called Catholic because it holds the Whole, Complete Faith for All times, for All people, in All places.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
[qb] Missed the edit window...

In fact, the finger pointing toward someone who is different and doesn't agree actually started with the second post, not with WW and myself.

Be that as it may, I'm not up to being in a black/white argument over inter-faith matters.

Peace to you all.

---

Quite right, pointing the finger at inappropriate public behaviour by a Christian minister started with me, author of the 2nd post in the thread. Am I not to say so if I disagree profoundly with what the Revd Mr Hart is doing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:
Those who see no sin or problem in Hart's actions (like you, sabine, or WW--again, the first two who come to mind) seem quick on the draw against anyone claiming Hart is failing to measure up to orthodox Christian standards.

---

Ken, everyone seems to have been quick on the draw on this thread.

Peace,
Sabine
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:

. . . Those who see no sin or problem in Hart's actions (like you, sabine, or WW--again, the first two who come to mind) seem quick on the draw against anyone claiming Hart is failing to measure up to orthodox Christian standards. . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:

. . . To put this in a sports metaphor, you can't play for opposing teams at the same time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
For some of us, Dave, words are not just sly subterfuge, and forms of worship enshrine truths that are consensually validated by Tradition and Magisterium.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:

. . . Those who see no sin or problem in Hart's actions (like you, sabine, or WW--again, the first two who come to mind) seem quick on the draw against anyone claiming Hart is failing to measure up to orthodox Christian standards. . .

---

I hope I am not quick on the draw about anything or against anyone. On reading yesterday's paper over lunch today I thought it an interesting little article and decided it might be worth discussing here. I posted it and was immediately harangued about it.

WW, I don't think there was any intention to harangue you about the subject of the article.

Furhtermore I see no need to compare David Hart to any sort of standard, orthodox Christian or not.

However, there has indeed been strong criticism levelled at D. Hart, and I do think that as a priest of the Church of England, his actions ought rightly to be held up in comparison to the official formularies of the CoE and of the Church Catholic of which she claims to be a part. Once again, an Anglican presbyter ain't the same thing as a UU minister.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:

. . . To put this in a sports metaphor, you can't play for opposing teams at the same time.

---

Hmm, perhaps the problem is that some people perceive it all as opposing teams rather than rendering unto God the things that are God's. I happen to see The People of God a little more inclusively than many others; that is a personal view which I believe I am entitled to hold here.

---

quote:

---

NOT an 'idol' Hindu images are known as 'murtis' and are seen as visual aids.

---

quote:

---

Hindus are not polytheists. They worship one God, Brahman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Coiled Spring, what have you been smoking or drinking?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think the problem here has to do with very different understandings of what the Church is. As usual, one understanding is grounded in the historical Church of the ages, and another understanding appears to emanate from the outer fringes of English nonconformism as it has developed over the past three centuries or so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
As to number three, well you will know already that I take your point; however, I think it's wrong to tar all Anglicans with the same brush, and some of us who remain in the CoE/Anglican Communion are obviously not at all cavalier about maintaining orthodoxy and discountenancing gross heresy.

---

I was contemplating using a different label for revelation mark three. But first, the "gin & tonic" would not have worked. Second, we are talking about "Rev. Hart, who renewed his orders for priesthood under the Bishop of Ely, Cambridgeshire, last month." There are RC priests who behave at least as badly, of course, but by the time they become newsworthy they are on their way out, not getting "renewed". Maintaining orthodoxy and discountenancing gross heresy requires a bit more than celebrating a perfect mass, saying a rosary and having warm and fuzzy thoughts about the pope... Ask St Nicholas about Arius.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
None of us has the capability of judging the purity of this man's heart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:

I need to apologize, so please bear with me. I've gone back and re-read the posts on this thread and I see mistakes I've made:

WW and sabine, I apologize if I came across as jumping up and down on you, that wasn't my intention. I was trying to call attention to what I saw as inconsistencies in your posts here, that's all. I didn't mean to cast any slurs against either of you.

I also need to apologize for naming both of you, as those who called some of the posters here hateful and fearful. You did not do this. Somehow I had let both of you represent some other posters here, and I erred in doing this. My bad.

---

Hey, no problem. Actually, I asked the thread as a whole why there was a sense of fearfulness, so you weren't so far off the mark. As for inconsistency--well, I can do it with the best of them!

If anything, this thread has led to a bit of fellow feeling among some of us. Ironic, isn't it.

I think lamb chopped probably best described the basic disconnect--some of us feel that statues are incidental and others feel that they are not; some of us feel that God as represented in culturally specific form is important, some of us feel it is not. some of us have strong opinions about what a priest should be doing wrt: statues and insense, and some of us do not.

While I would like to find a way to capture the best of both ways of seeing (especially since I usually hang out in the gray areas between poles) I recognize that it's probably not going to happen in this particular case.

Anyway, thanks for the apology.

sabine
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
As I understand it, the priest has signed something like "I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the <insert specific Anglican church>." and has answered his bishop positively to questions like "Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same according to the Commandments of God, so that you may teach the people committed to your care and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:
I need to apologize, so please bear with me. I've gone back and re-read the posts on this thread and I see mistakes I've made:

WW and sabine, I apologize if I came across as jumping up and down on you, that wasn't my intention. I was trying to call attention to what I saw as inconsistencies in your posts here, that's all. I didn't mean to cast any slurs against either of you.

I also need to apologize for naming both of you, as those who called some of the posters here hateful and fearful. You did not do this. Somehow I had let both of you represent some other posters here, and I erred in doing this. My bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
As far as I can tell (from the canons, section C15) the Church of England doesn't impose this kind of conformity.

---

quote:

---

C 15 Of the Declaration of Assent

1(1) The Declaration of Assent to be made under this Canon shall be in the form set out below:

PREFACE

The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?

Declaration of Assent

I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:

He has a membership in one church. His spiritual quest may be unrelated to that membership, or may have been born of it. I think sometimes God will lead us to places that we might not go if we stayed within the boundaries in order to allow us to learn something that is for our own spiritual good.

We have no idea what is needed for this man's spiritual good. That's part of his intimate relationship with God.

sabine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
I think you might find he does not have a matey and is not really a proper Anglican priest, there is a lot of them out in the parishs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I still want to know why people feel so, shall we say, strongly about this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:
To put this in a sports metaphor, you can't play for opposing teams at the same time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Any chance of those with book on Anglican little matey`s checking how many David Harts out there please

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

I still want to know why people feel so, shall we say, strongly about this. It's one thing to disapprove of inter-faith worship, but why would you want to stop someone else doing it? If he finds it helpful to acknowledge Ganesh and be publicly seen to do so in some context or other, why would you not want to find out his reasons? Why would you prefer to condemn him and have him stopped or punished first?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I still want to know why people feel so, shall we say, strongly about this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
On the other hand, pace Demas, I see nothing wrong with assimilating other beliefs into our own metanarrative as long as we are mindful that that is what we're doing and don't claim anything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I still want to know why people feel so, shall we say, strongly about this.

---

Why did Hosea feel so strongly about it? Why did the apostle John warn against it as a parting exhortation? Why was Solomon's reign destroyed by it? Why did Israel get taken in by it? Why does the whole Judeo-Christian canon of scripture roundly disapprove of it? Why doesn't God like it? Why? Why? Why?

You already know the answer hatless. You just don't like what you're hearing.

---

1. Faith in Doubt: Non-realism and Christian Belief. Mowbrays, 1993. 0 264 67327 1. Reviewed by Lloyd Geering.
2. One Faith? Mowbrays, 1995. 0 264 67367 0. Preface by Don Cupitt.
3. Linking up: Radical Christianity and Sexuality. Arthur James, 1997. Foreword by Bishop John Spong.
4. Multi-faith Britain. O Books, 2002. 1-903816-08-4. Reviewed by Paul Overend.

quote:

---

This web site is dedicated to Heavenly Father (God) and True Parents (Reverend and Mrs. Moon). Adam and Eve should have been the True Parents of humanity. <...> Heavenly Father worked with fallen man to make a foundation to send a Second Adam, Jesus. <...> Since, Jesus could not fulfil his entire mission, Heavenly Father had to rebuild the foundation for True Parents, by sending the Third Adam, Sun Myung Moon. Rev. Moon fulfilled the mission of True Parents that Adam and Jesus had failed to fulfil. By uniting with Rev. and Mrs. Moon humanity can fulfil their purpose of creation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven both spiritually and physically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Unfortunately, the above praise of Moon is the only online text by Rev Hart I was able to track down...

---

quote:

---

There's no room for Ganesh in [canon C15].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Of course, the above praise of Moon was not by Rev Hart at all. But not to worry, it all contributes to undermining Hart's credibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
As for C15, what about "in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon." What's the Canon for his public prayer to Ganesh then?

---

quote:

---

From Canon B 4:
3. The Ordinary may approve forms of service for use in any cathedral or church or elsewhere in the diocese on occasion for which no provision is made in The Book of Common Prayer or by the General Synod under Canon B 2 or by the Convocation or archbishops under this Canon, being forms of service which in the opinion of the Ordinary in both words and order are reverent and seemly and are neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I really do believe there is only one spiritual power in the universe (so the theory that "other gods" are really demonic powers doesn't fly)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Leo

quote:

---

NOT an 'idol' Hindu images are known as 'murtis' and are seen as visual aids.

---

Incorrect. When the priest performs the prana pratishtha ceremony, the murti is imbued with the spirit of the deity. So, in many ways this parallels to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The objection of the Orthodox Catholic Christian to this is NOT the doctrine of the murti itself but what the murti represents. We are not all gathered around guessing what God is like (as in that cliched elephant) ... we are Christians who by no means can worship that which is not the Trinity.

quote:

---

Hindus are not polytheists. They worship one God, Brahman.

---

Incorrect ... because it is simplistic. True, there are some Hindus who deny divine status to the deities but rather insist of these being attributes of Brahman. Most Hindus however, regard these theophanic manifestations as divine in their own right. Moreover, even if that were not true burning incense before a manifestation of a non-personalist monist entity is certainly excluded by the Christian revelation of God as Trinity.

Any Christian who thinks that Hart's actions are OK know nothing of Christian history let alone the necessity of staying within the revelation entrusted to us. Someone here no doubt will soon claim that the golden calf was a legitimate manifestation of YHWH.

I really do begin to think now that some who claim to bear the name of Christ here really do belong to a completely different religion than I do.

---

quote:

---

What's my point? My point is this: it's a good memory; I enjoyed the experience. But that doesn't mean that I think that Hinduism has got it right about Jesus. I think that the Hindu approach to other faiths is no better than spiritual kleptomania. Basically I think that Rev'd What's-his-name has bought into that way of seeing things. Jesus seems to be little more that just another 'face' in the pantheon of hindu deities and 'gods' decorating the walls of his mind. This, to me, is unacceptable because Jesus is the One True God, not just another option is the spiritual sweet-shop. The man has fallen into the ancient sin of Israel; synctretism, which nothing less than spiritual whoredom. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
So I do not inherently condemn assimilating other narratives into our own, but I am wary, both for the sake of our own narrative and also out of respect for those who follow different traditions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dosey:


The fact remains that none of you guys have provided satisfactory answers on why a person shouldn't partake in inter-faith worship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteCanada:
I think what people are missing out here is that Hart is a priest in South India. Christianity there is very much a minority religion, and Christians and Muslims do their very best to get along with their neighbours. It is not at all shocking, or terrible, in the context of South India, but I can certainly understand why those who do not live in a multicultural society might find it upsetting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If there is no spiritual entity Ganesh, but Rev Hart thinks there is or gives the impression that there may be, then the activity doesn't seem very helpful to his Christian faith or the Christian faith of others. But much the same could be said about Catholics with statues of Mary...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I still want to know why people feel so, shall we say, strongly about this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:
To put this in a sports metaphor, you can't play for opposing teams at the same time.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I just can't see that there are competing Gods, and I can't therefore get any team spirit up for my side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
.... if Christianity is not the One True Religion....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
See if I were criticizing Rev. Hart's behavior I would use a different reason than those I've seen here: that verse about avoiding the appearance of evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, if the Hindus whose temple that is know that he does not believe in Ganeesh, but don't take exception to his actions then maybe he's safe there but I rather agree.

---

quote:

---

If we can get his explanation (which would be facinating) then feel free to diss it if you don't agree, but don't assume it doesn't exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
I think you might find he does not have a matey and is not really a proper Anglican priest, there is a lot of them out in the parishs.
There was one up north (UK) who preached on witches being OK people.

---

All the witches I've known (not Satanists but Wiccans) are okay people. They're are just not Christians.
 

---

Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
m.t-tomb comarision to adultry summed problem for me. If we are part of the Bride of Christ there can be no little (or big) nibble on the side.
It took a while to get used to seeing houses in India with Christian and Hindi symbols of worship on outside. They do seem to like hedging their bets.
Interestly moslems never indugle in this sort of practice.

[ 30. August 2006, 06:56: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eclectic as I am, I admit I did have a bit of a negative, knee-jerk reaction about a *priest* openly offering incense to the statue of another god in his front yard.

However, I'm feeling somewhat better now. Or at least a little less hypocritical.

The article in the OP is short and doesn't dig into too many details. But it seems that the priest has been like this since he was a kid, he thinks that all deities are representations of one God and/or ways of reaching out to God, and he is involved with the World Parliament of Religions. I don't think he is trying to worship other gods, per se. I think he is simply openly and honestly being who he is.

That may be against many official rules and beliefs, and may trigger all sorts of problems. But at least he has the courage of his convictions. And while his approach may anger or drive off some people, it might also interest other people in God.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
All the witches I've known (not Satanists but Wiccans) are okay people. They're are just not Christians.

---

quote:

---

Goldenkey, I can't really agree that Revd Hart has the 'courage of his convictions' on this. If he does, then why doesn't he renounce his position as Revd?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
When I started this thread I didn’t expect anything like the response it has got. I am frankly amazed at the vehemence of many of the posts. I have been reflecting on this and wonder whether the issue is purely a theological one or whether there is an undercurrent of what I can best describe as western cultural imperialism:

"We’re westerners, we know more about Christianity, you should do it our way!"

Sorry folks, Christianity has been happily co-existing with Hinduism here since Thomas the Apostle arrived in AD 52.

---

And St Thomas arrived and honoured Ganesh did he?

I'm not sure what you mean by ' you weren't expecting the vehemence of the response', I think most of us on here are just having an honest and direct debate on here. If you wanted everyone to agree with you then perhaps this website wasn't the best one for you to post on!

I think some people are bound to disagree. If Revd Hart now has a different perspective on Christianity then he should explain that and perhaps leave. I don't think that's vehement, I rather think it's the same as saying, for example, Tony Blair should leave the Labour Party because he's clearly to the right of most members. It's rather a statement of fact as far as I see it.

Still Bishop Jenkins of Durham remained Bishop up till '94, well after he stated that he didn't believe in the literal truth of the resurrection, so in the context of Anglicanism then perhaps Revd Hart is perfectly within his rights given that precedence. But from a more logical and literal understanding of the Articles of faith and the Bible and Anglican/Christian tradition, it does seem rather obvious that Revd Hart has departed from all of these.

[ 30. August 2006, 11:19: Message edited by: feast of stephen ]
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Yeah. try using that excuse if you ever commit adultery. Well, darling, everyone knows that you're my only wife; yes, I has sex with a prostitute, but I was really making love to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
It took a while to get used to seeing houses in India with Christian and Hindi symbols of worship on outside. They do seem to like hedging their bets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that anyone who wants to invoke the first commandment against Rev Hart has to (as part of the charge they're making) assert that a god called Ganesh exists. Which for some reason they seem reluctant to do...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that anyone who wants to invoke the first commandment against Rev Hart has to (as part of the charge they're making) assert that a god called Ganesh exists. Which for some reason they seem reluctant to do...

---

By the same argument, when the OT prophets invoked the first two commandments against the ancient Hebrews for incorporating symbols borrowed from Baal worship (such as Asherah's poles) into their temple worship, they would have needed to assert that a god called Baal exists. And as far as I can make out from the OT, they didn't do that.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that the Judea-Christian tradition has always had issues with syncrenism. (Notwithstanding the sort of 'redemptive appropriation' that Barnabas mentioned earlier in the thread).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Yeah. try using that excuse if you ever commit adultery. Well, darling, everyone knows that you're my only wife; yes, I has sex with a prostitute, but I was really making love to you.

---

The difference being that the prostitute actually exists as a seperate entity, and the person using said prostitute knows full well it is not the same person as his wife and uses her services accordingly.

I can see a massive difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
When I started this thread I didn’t expect anything like the response it has got. I am frankly amazed at the vehemence of many of the posts. I have been reflecting on this and wonder whether the issue is purely a theological one or whether there is an undercurrent of what I can best describe as western cultural imperialism:

"We’re westerners, we know more about Christianity, you should do it our way!"

Sorry folks, Christianity has been happily co-existing with Hinduism here since Thomas the Apostle arrived in AD 52.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Yeah. try using that excuse if you ever commit adultery. Well, darling, everyone knows that you're my only wife; yes, I has sex with a prostitute, but I was really making love to you.

---

The difference being that the prostitute actually exists as a seperate entity, and the person using said prostitute knows full well it is not the same person as his wife and uses her services accordingly.

I can see a massive difference.

---

OK. How about: Well, darling, everyone knows that you're my only wife; yes, I has sex with a prostitute, but I was really making love to you in my heart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think that at the time it was rather assumed that Baal did exist. It did take rather a long time for YHWH to work His way up in the Hebrew mind from a tribal God who was special because He was their tribal God, via conceptions as being the Top God, to being the only all-powerful God, to being the only player on the scene. Given that, the prophets' objections make perfect sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed. But context is all-important. Worship of Canaanite deities involved practices that were in themselves unpleasant or indeed downright evil - from ritual prostitution to human sacrifice, at least the way the OT tells it. And in the Christian era, the requirements for Christians to partake of Emperor worship were specifically about renouncing Christianity.

We have to ask what this all means given modern assumptions about the existence of gods, about what these rituals mean to us now, rather than simplistically looking back to the applications of fundamental principles to past situations. The guy may well be wrong, but discerning whether this is the case is a lot more complicated - and I'd suggest thought provoking - than pointing to a few verses and canons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by feast of stephen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
When I started this thread I didn’t expect anything like the response it has got. I am frankly amazed at the vehemence of many of the posts. I have been reflecting on this and wonder whether the issue is purely a theological one or whether there is an undercurrent of what I can best describe as western cultural imperialism:

"We’re westerners, we know more about Christianity, you should do it our way!"

Sorry folks, Christianity has been happily co-existing with Hinduism here since Thomas the Apostle arrived in AD 52.

---

And St Thomas arrived and honoured Ganesh did he?

I'm not sure what you mean by ' you weren't expecting the vehemence of the response', I think most of us on here are just having an honest and direct debate on here. If you wanted everyone to agree with you then perhaps this website wasn't the best one for you to post on!

I think some people are bound to disagree. If Revd Hart now has a different perspective on Christianity then he should explain that and perhaps leave. I don't think that's vehement, I rather think it's the same as saying, for example, Tony Blair should leave the Labour Party because he's clearly to the right of most members. It's rather a statement of fact as far as I see it.

Still Bishop Jenkins of Durham remained Bishop up till '94, well after he stated that he didn't believe in the literal truth of the resurrection, so in the context of Anglicanism then perhaps Revd Hart is perfectly within his rights given that precedence. But from a more logical and literal understanding of the Articles of faith and the Bible and Anglican/Christian tradition, it does seem rather obvious that Revd Hart has departed from all of these.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
his words could be taken as simply confident that his God was bigger than their god - but did the people of Israel in general?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
I'm just trying to highlight this deeply rooted conviction within the Judeo-Christian mindset that strongly resists the blurring of its distinctiveness alongside other alternative religious practices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
his words could be taken as simply confident that his God was bigger than their god - but did the people of Israel in general?

---

Aye, but I thought the issue was the convictions of the biblical writers and the prophets themselves, rather than those of the people in general.

---

quote:

---

Your point about Elijah killing off his opponents after this incident is well taken - you do recall correctly. I'm certainly not arguing for a "full application of the Elijah model" at this point, I'm just trying to highlight this deeply rooted conviction within the Judeo-Christian mindset that strongly resists the blurring of its distinctiveness alongside other alternative religious practices. There seems to me to be more to it than it being tied to the henotheistic culture of that particular time.

---

quote:

---

Again, Numpty, you're assuming that Ganesh exists as a seperate entity from God. If Ganesh and God are one and the same, or, rather, if Ganesh is a representation of one aspect of God, then the analogy doesn't work.

---

quote:

---

"Well, darling, everyone knows that you're my only wife; yes, I wank off to pornographic images of women that aren't you, but I'm making love to you in my heart."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And again I'm telling you the analogy doesn't work if there are no other women for there to be pornographic images of. Just the wife, with different hairstyles, in different moods, and wearing different clothes.

If you're not getting why the analogy doesn't work, please drop it.

---

If may say so I think that's a little pedantic.

In the OT it basically condemns worship of all other Gods except Him. God acknowledges that there are other Gods out there but he requests (strongly!)the isrealites not to worship them.

So are we to take it that you're saying the Hindus plethora of deities, even if they are all represenative of Brahman (which is debatable) is one and the same God as Our Father? Sure there's some similarities i.e. a kind of trinity etc, but I still can't see how you made that leap, given what the OT says. And presumably since Revd Hart decided to be a Christian and put himself forward for ordination, he acknowledges what the OT says about other Gods?
 

---

Posted by JillieRose (# 9588) on :
 
What if, (sorry Karl) assuming that all representations of gods are actually just parts of the One True God, what if said deity doesn't want to be worshipped like that?

What if, to borrow your analogy, the wife wishes to be made love to when she is dressed like herself, wearing her own clothes and her own hairstyles and not clothes borrowed from her friends? What if she sees having to borrow others' clothes to entice her husband to sex as humiliating, or as whoring herself?
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
That's a much better analogy, JillieRose. Now we just need to answer that question...
 

---

Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillieRose:
What if, (sorry Karl) assuming that all representations of gods are actually just parts of the One True God, what if said deity doesn't want to be worshipped like that?

What if, to borrow your analogy, the wife wishes to be made love to when she is dressed like herself, wearing her own clothes and her own hairstyles and not clothes borrowed from her friends? What if she sees having to borrow others' clothes to entice her husband to sex as humiliating, or as whoring herself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The idols we really ought to be worried about are global capitalism and militarism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Within some or parts of, perhaps, rather than the whole? I am not nitpicking here, I am making an important point that there are some members of the Judaeo-Christian tradition who do not have that mindset.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
On that I'd disagree. Elijah considered Baal worship to be dangerous to Israel. The question is why. If the people saw it as a case of "let's worship Baal instead of YHWH, or as well as Him", then it certainly would be. If they saw it as having another god, it would be dangerous. I have no idea whether Elijah thought Baal was real in any sense, or what he thought. My focus here is on the fact that in that society and culture, at that particular time, it was a Bad Thing because it set up an alternative god in the minds of the people of Israel.

---

quote:

---

I'd also suggest that we cannot escape the other significance of the killing of the prophets of Baal, which is that in Israel at that time a religious statement was also a political one. Just as in post-reformation Europe, to follow a different religious practice was to dissociate oneself with one's own national identity and to associate with a foreign one - and an enemy one at that. It was very much like being an English Roman Catholic in the reign of Elizabeth I whilst we were at war with Catholic Spain. It was treasonous in the eyes of the authorities. We do not live in a time and a place where religion and national identity are so closely identified now, not in Europe, nor in India.

---

quote:

---

The message throughout the OT is pretty clear, and of course this has informed much of the Judaeo-Christian mindset over the last 2000 years. That is not to say that there is no value in deconstructing the whys and wherefores of it, and asking what it means today.

---

Very good of you to say so.
 

---

Posted by dosey (# 10259) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by feast of stephen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And again I'm telling you the analogy doesn't work if there are no other women for there to be pornographic images of. Just the wife, with different hairstyles, in different moods, and wearing different clothes.

If you're not getting why the analogy doesn't work, please drop it.

---

If may say so I think that's a little pedantic.

In the OT it basically condemns worship of all other Gods except Him. God acknowledges that there are other Gods out there but he requests (strongly!)the isrealites not to worship them.

So are we to take it that you're saying the Hindus plethora of deities, even if they are all represenative of Brahman (which is debatable) is one and the same God as Our Father? Sure there's some similarities i.e. a kind of trinity etc, but I still can't see how you made that leap, given what the OT says. And presumably since Revd Hart decided to be a Christian and put himself forward for ordination, he acknowledges what the OT says about other Gods?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
...when the OT prophets invoked the first two commandments against the ancient Hebrews for incorporating symbols borrowed from Baal worship (such as Asherah's poles) into their temple worship, they would have needed to assert that a god called Baal exists. And as far as I can make out from the OT, they didn't do that.....

---

quote:

---

For the LORD is the great God,
the great King above all gods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Within some or parts of, perhaps, rather than the whole? I am not nitpicking here, I am making an important point that there are some members of the Judaeo-Christian tradition who do not have that mindset.

---

I don't doubt that, WW. But the resistance is there within what is generally agreed to be some quite important parts of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and I think that we can't merely ignore them - we do have to do business with them if we intend to be faithful to the tradition as a whole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The idols we really ought to be worried about are global capitalism and militarism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
You appear to making a non-sequitur argument here, Karl. You say that politics are involved in such apparently religious actions, and you're quite right. But it does not follow that if you take away the political motivation, nothing of the religious or spiritual motivation remains.

---

quote:

---

Jillie - now you're getting somewhere with your version of the analogy. I am actually quite undecided as to whether Ganesh is a facet of the same God that Christians worship, or whether that very much depends on the individual worshipper. I'm not sure exactly how to apply your version of the metaphor. What has God said about how He wants to be worshipped? "In Spirit and in Truth"? What does it mean? I think there's a lot of potential exploration being done here and I'm rather glad we're able to do it despite the "He's not really Christian, should be defrocked, etc. etc. etc." knee-jerk reaction of some early posts.

---

quote:

---

No it won't be, becuase there is no such thing as a one size fits all religion. So really it would be appealing to different parts of that man. (This would mean that God is appealing to different cultures) The lust part of the man is interseted in the intelluectual part. You can never say one group of people are the same as another.

---

quote:

---

So god has to slightly alter his message to fit in with different cultures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The idols we really ought to be worried about are global capitalism and militarism.

---

False dichotomy. Unless you really think that we cannot be opposed both to paying ritual homage to non-Christian idols and to capitalism and militarism. And that would be an odd thing to be saying.

Your point is presumably that there are other types of idolatry than the technical one of burning incense to non-Chriatian "deity". Mine is that the one does not eliminate the badness of the other.

Just to be clear, Hart was paying cultic homage to an idol of a religion that specifically denies Christ's divine Person and his unique and once-for-all work. If that is not at the very least asking to be seen as idolatry in the obvious sense, then I can't see that idolatry is a meaningful concept at all. If that isn't (willfully and recklessly giving the impression of) idolatry then nothing could be.

The reason there appears to be so much heat in the reactions to Hart's behaviour is, it seems to me, because of the incredulity some of us feel in the denials we are reading that burning incense at the shrine of a non-Christian God is in any way idolatrous. It beggars belief.

If to burn incense at Caesar's shrine would have been wrong for Christians in the early Church, what makes it alright to burn it at Ganesh's now? It seems to me that precisely the same justifications could be dreamed up for the former as are being presented here for the latter. What's the difference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The idols we really ought to be worried about are global capitalism and militarism.

---

Yes, and sections of the church are actively promoting them!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillieRose:

quote:

---

So god has to slightly alter his message to fit in with different cultures.

---

I am afraid I will have to disagree. I don't think God changes. The analogy works (for me) only if applied to the externals of religion.

For example, the Gospel is the same message it was yesterday, and will be the same tomorrow. However, it is not necessary that we present it while wearing, to pick a random example, eighteenth century corsets or first century rabbi outfits. Nor does it require us to present it in Ancient Greek, nor in King James English.

But the message of Jesus is unchanged. "God came down, died, and was resurrected. This was for your benefit." and so on. In any language, to any culture, that is the message.

The externals of presentation change, but the message and the God behind it, in my opinion, do not.

Otherwise it would be a different religion, wouldn't it?

(ETA: Thank you for reexplaining it.) (I can spell. Honest.)

---

Well, I certianly can't spell, but that me,

No, it doesn't change. Culture is a unique thing that will die if tampered with. Look at native Americian culture it pretty much died with the arrival of missionaries. After all totems were a form of idol worship according to them.

So really just becuase god repackages religion for different cultures doesn't make the religion different.

There are many similarities between Christ and Krishna (different God I know, but Krishna is one of the biggies for hindus)

#6 & 45: Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
7: Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
8 & 46: Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
13, 15, 16 & 23: His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
18: A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
21: Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
27 & 28: Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
30 to 34: Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
41 & 42: Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
56: Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
58: Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
60: Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
64: Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
66: Both were "without sin."
72: Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
76, 77, & 78: They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
83, 84, & 85: Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
86 & 87: Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
101: Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
109 to 112: Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
115: Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.


Can look at the orginal text at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

So really the message is the same, just done by different people, and they all came down for us, died for us, and livied for us.
 

---

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And again I'm telling you the analogy doesn't work if there are no other women for there to be pornographic images of. Just the wife, with different hairstyles, in different moods, and wearing different clothes.

If you're not getting why the analogy doesn't work, please drop it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillieRose:
So, dosey, if I've got this right, what you believe is that Christianity is just Hinduism repackaged, which is also Islam repackaged, which is Buddhism repackaged, for example?

If that is what you believe then I would completely disagree because, for example:

- Buddhism does not (AFAIK) believe in a God per se.

- Islam believes you need to follow its rules and believe in its tenets, and that it's the only way to get into Heaven.

- Christianity requires a personal relationship with Jesus as The way, truth and life, the only way to get into Heaven.

- Hinduism is different again.

There are fundamental differences between all major religions which makes them incompatible with each other. They have similarities, yes, but if they all (or most of them) claim they are the One True Way and that all other ways are wrong, then somebody has to be wrong. They are lying, or they are mistaken. And if they are not lying, then the God who created them is lying because He or She said that to each different religion.

To change topic slightly, to take your example about Native American culture, this is a perfect example of my culture differences point. Christianity, AFAIK, has not taken off with people who want to retain their Native American roots because missionaries have not been able to help them adapt it to the culture: that is, they have not known how to facilitate people into being 'Christian Native Americans' rather than 'Christian Irish' or 'Christian Indians' or 'Christian Chinese'.

Obviously, as Christians they would not participate in idol worship, but there is no reason for the parts of their culture which do not run contrary to Christianity to be kept.

A person's adherence to their culture will change if they become a Christian: their primary concern will shift from 'me' to 'Him' and that changes outlook. But if culture is so fragile as to shatter if a new viewpoint is brought in, then I would say it's probably either 1) not a strong culture, or 2) that maybe the new outlook wishes to destroy the culture outright.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
There's nothing wrong with the metaphor; the problem lies with the relativistic frame of reference through which you filter the analogy. I said images of women; not photographs or film. It is quite possible for an artist to draw an erotic image of a woman who does not exist, Manga pornography is a good example. You wouldn't suggest that all imagery of the feminine is equally valid regardless of what that imagery 'says' about women. That would be a very dangerous concept Karl, very dangerous.

---

quote:

---

And? If you have a brain than you realise that at leat 5 billlion people are destined to hell becuase they do not accept that God as the one supreme lord.

---

quote:

---

All of them say that just to instill greater devotion, IMHO.

---

quote:

---

(posted by Dave Marshall) Twaddle. If there is only one God, any image that is represented as illustrating an aspect of God has as much validity as any other. It's usefulness will depend on how meaning is ascribed to it and derived from it.

---

quote:

---

(posted by Dave Marshall) The only danger I can see here is if people seeing God through a different image to you appreciate God differently to you and you feel duty-bound to attack them because of it.

---

quote:

---

(posted by Karl)And again I'm telling you the analogy doesn't work if there are no other women for there to be pornographic images of. Just the wife, with different hairstyles, in different moods, and wearing different clothes.

---

quote:

---

(posted by me) What if, to borrow your analogy, the wife wishes to be made love to when she is dressed like herself, wearing her own clothes and her own hairstyles and not clothes borrowed from her friends? What if she sees having to borrow others' clothes to entice her husband to sex as humiliating, or as whoring herself?

---

quote:

---

Whatever absolutist frame of reference you think you're filtering the metaphor through is nothing of the sort. You have no certain knowledge of God any more than the rest of us.

---

Except for the last sentence, I have no idea what this bit means. Sorry. Would you mind explaining it?
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Geez, folks! This religion as marriage/sex metaphor can only take you so far.

[ 30. August 2006, 20:38: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I find myself in an interesting postion with respect to this thread. I am not one who would at all often argue in favour of "Biblical Christianity", or take as my texts the 39 Articles or Quicunque Vult. Rather, I understand the Church to be sat atop a three legged stool comprised of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

None the less, ISTM that this thread largely reveals an argument between orthodox Christians and the heterodox; between those willing to entertain doctrinal ideas that fall outside the New Testament vs. those who insist that the exlusive faith in Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ cannot be compromised with importations from non-Christian religions.

ISTM that everything else being argued here is really peripheral. This has nothing to do with acknowledging that there can be much that is good, true, and virtuous in other religions; nor with an acknowledgement that God is quite beyond the capability of our formulae to adequately describe and capture; nor yet that the Holy Spirit and the entire work of the incarnational atonement and sacrifice of Calvary don't also operate beyond the bounds of the community of the baptised.

However, I believe this thread essentially started with the implicit question: hey, is what this Christian priest is doing cool or what? The answer from orthodox Christians, I think, is emphatically, "No, it's not."
 

---

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillieRose:
So, dosey, if I've got this right, what you believe is that Christianity is just Hinduism repackaged, which is also Islam repackaged, which is Buddhism repackaged, for example?

---

quote:

---

There are fundamental differences between all major religions which makes them incompatible with each other. They have similarities, yes, but if they all (or most of them) claim they are the One True Way and that all other ways are wrong, then somebody has to be wrong. They are lying, or they are mistaken. And if they are not lying, then the God who created them is lying because He or She said that to each different religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The difference being that the prostitute actually exists as a seperate entity, and the person using said prostitute knows full well it is not the same person as his wife and uses her services accordingly.

I can see a massive difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillieRose:

Second, there is no need to insult me. I'm perfectly capable of coherent thought.

---

Sorrry, didn't mean that


Also, That really doesn't make him sadistic, he doesn't say

quote:

---

NOW GO OUT AND SMITE ALL THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN ME

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
But the resistance is there within what is generally agreed to be some quite important parts of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and I think that we can't merely ignore them - we do have to do business with them if we intend to be faithful to the tradition as a whole.

---

I accept this wholeheartedly AND I expect that "they" also both accept and respect that there a people in Christendom, like David Hart, who do not hold the same views on this subject as "they" do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
Buddhism is God packaged by Buddhists

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
Incidentally:

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
Buddhism is God packaged by Buddhists

---

I doubt that you would ever find a Buddhist who would agree with you about that. There are gods in some some forms of Buddhism, but Buddhism is essentially non-theistic...

[edited to fix code]

---

Oh yes, I'm quite aware of that, but I did say that I do not see God as "personal". It would take too long for me to type "the search for meaning and purpose, both as an individual and as a member of humanity" every time. OliviaG
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
dosey

It is probably most helpful if I confine my comments to this single illustration. The website you referred to when comparing Krishna and Christ has this as one of its statements of belief.

quote:

---

That the systems of truth in the field of morals, ethics, and religious belief that we have studied are not absolute: they vary by culture, by religion, and over time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
If it is possible for me draw or sculpt and image of a person that does not exist, why do you claim that it is impossible to draw or sculpt and image of a God that does not exist? Are you denying the possibility of artistic fiction? The possibility of spiritual fiction?

---

quote:

---

Is it possible for a human being to make a God?

---

quote:

---

Hey there, WW. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your use of "they" in inverted commas - maybe you think I'm being disengenous by referring to myself in the third person.

---

Sorry humblebum, my "they" didn't refer to your "they" at all. I was simply referring to the idea that there are people in what I will loosely call Christendom who do not fit the model that some here describe as the exclusive, eternal, non-negotiable criteria for fitting the model. Round pegs and square holes.
 

---

Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
(Woderick - your PM box is very full and a a few of us have asked you to clean house, pls!)
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 


Sorry!
 

---

Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 
My parents and Sunday School teachers would always tell me, when I was young, that the more you learn about God the more you realize that you don't understand. Many of us here would agree that despite all that we believe to be true about God, there is a near-infinite vastness of knowledge that we will never attain about him.

That being the case, I recognize that my view of God, derived largely from scripture and the Protestant Talmud (as I like to call it), vastly under-represents the fullness of who God truly is.

If I were to someday be granted the opportunity to sit at God's feet as he dictated the remainder of knowledge that exists regarding him and compiled it into the billions of volumes that it would take to contain it, what would we find written inside those covers? I think many of us will only admit that we don't know the answer to this question under the provision that we are allowed to add, "But I sure as hell know what wouldn't be in there!"

But do we? Scripture reports that God doesn't tempt any man, yet that God tempted Abraham; that we should honor our father and mother, but that we should hate them; that no man has ever seen God, but that Jacob saw God face to face. I do not say that these are unresolvable contradictions, only that they require a hidden "unless clause" to aid in their understanding.

If these hidden "unless clauses" are required in so many places that we know of, how many more could exist throughout the Scripture? How many more would be uncovered as we paged through those Billion Volumes of Unknown Knowledge? How many would make sense of the various religions on earth, perhaps even of Rev. Hart's recent actions?

It is impossible for me to know or say. I suppose the answer, for me, is hidden somewhere in those Billion Volumes, and I look forward to a couple of long, splendid centuries of reading in Heaven.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
I'd go along with what a few others have already said - respecting the faith of others requires that we acknowledge difference rather than pretending it is only semantic.

It seems to me that this rather PoMo urge to pretend that everyone else is a Christian really is an ugly consequence of 1,750 years or so of Christendom. For the vast majority of our history not being Christian was not acceptable. It placed you outside of society, it placed you outside of the moral structures of that society. A non-Christian was - in the view of past generations of Christians - a sociopath. And that habit has stuck. We have forgotten how to live in non-Christian society.

But the truly tolerant thing - perhaps the truly Christian thing - would be to accept that other people don't need to be Christian to be people we can talk with, work with, live with.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Prof. Kirke wrote:

I suppose the answer, for me, is hidden somewhere in those Billion Volumes, and I look forward to a couple of long, splendid centuries of reading in Heaven.

---

And then there's that new book Mark Twain is writing! (Per the movie "It's A Wonderful Life".)

 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Interestly moslems never indugle in this sort of practice.

---

Not quite true ... Life of Pi is admittedly a fiction, but one that reflects my experience growing up in Ghana. Our family driver described himself as a moslem christian - and hedged his bets with a good few native deities, too.

While I personally would not take as syncretistic a step as Hart, I would join those who engage in processes of interfaith dialogue. Where interfaith acts of worship take place I believe representatives of each religious tradition need to be careful in observing the parameters of their traditions. There were sines quae non (if that is the plural, which i doubt!) beyond which our forebears-in-faith were nor prepared to tread and for which they were prepared to die. And i would be loathe to stride beyond them.

I would need to hear more about Hart's own views. If the Emperor Nero said to him "worship me or die" would he burn incense to Nero? If so I would feel he was sadly misguided, compromised in his faith (I'm not saying I'm brave enough in that context either: as I've said elsewhere we don't know until it happens). Here he has reached beyond a point atb which I would feel comfortable, but if I were to express concern it would not be with the vitriol that some of my christ-bearing sisters and brothers have done in the context of this thread.

Strangely, as One who has studied much in the areas of inter-faith dialogue, I would say that I have seen more christlikeness in people like Hart, Pannikar, Hick, Bede Griffiths and especially Klostermaier than in those who draw militant lines in the sand.

Two very good collections of essays (though nearly twenty years old now )with contrasting views on this field are the pluralist edition edited by John Hick and Paul Knitter, The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: towards a pluralistic theology of religions (Orbis 1987) and the inclusivist essays edited in reply by Gavin D'Costa, Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: the myth of a pluralistic theology of religions (Orbis 1990). I happen to side strongly with the D'Costa et al position, but I don't do lightly - nor do the contributors to that volume.

[ 31. August 2006, 07:23: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:

Interestly moslems never indugle in this sort of practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
Oh yes, I'm quite aware of that, but I did say that I do not see God as "personal". It would take too long for me to type "the search for meaning and purpose, both as an individual and as a member of humanity" every time. OliviaG

---

I see what you mean, Olivia

I do think that's a rather vague common denomator to base a pluralism around, though. The major world faiths do have rather different answers (sometimes quite contradictory) to the question of this search for meaning and purpose. I don't think it's helpful to suggest that the differences are merely external.
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Scripture reports that God doesn't tempt any man, yet that God tempted Abraham

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afghan:


But the truly tolerant thing - perhaps the truly Christian thing - would be to accept that other people don't need to be Christian to be people we can talk with, work with, live with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's another bit, though, where God asks for volunteers amongst the spirits in His court to go and tempt a king - I forget which one. It's almost like "God tempts no-one - He subcontracts the job"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:

Interestly moslems never indugle in this sort of practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HangarQueen:
But I would still argue that we have the fullest revelation of God in Christ Jesus so why bother worshipping anyone else?

---

quote:

---

AND you are arguing from a Western Christian perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillieRose:

quote:

---

AND you are arguing from a Western Christian perspective.

---

Quick question, WW, isn't the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ a fairly common, for example, Chinese Christian or Nigerian Christian viewpoint too, and not just Western Christianity? Or have the biases been passed on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HangarQueen:
But I would still argue that we have the fullest revelation of God in Christ Jesus so why bother worshipping anyone else?

---

. . . AND you are arguing from a Western Christian perspective. A Moslem or a Sikh or a Hindu or a Buddhist [or . . . or . . . or . . .] might well view things rather differently. Surely it is respectful to take one's own bias into account when discussing these things.

I don't think there is anything wrong with bias as long as we recognise that it is there!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Numpty - I'm not "insisting" on anything, except having a proper unpacking of this question instead of a foaming-at-the-mouth denunciation without it.

I'm some kind of left-field near heretic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HangarQueen:
If Ganesh is a god (and not just an aspect of God) then Rev. Hart shouldn't be offering libations to him. If Ganesh isn't a god (not even an aspect of God) then the Rev. Hart is wasting his time. If Ganesh is an aspect of God, then that makes things more complicated. But I would still argue that we have the fullest revelation of God in Christ Jesus so why bother worshipping anyone else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
. . . but perhaps it isn't entirely bad to unsettle people from time to time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Numpty - I'm not "insisting" on anything, except having a proper unpacking of this question instead of a foaming-at-the-mouth denunciation without it.

I'm some kind of left-field near heretic.

---

I'll tell you what then. If you would remove the 'this guy's a conservative evangelical and therefore slightly thick' tinted spectacles, then I'll remove my 'this guy's a liberal relativist and therefore an evil heretic' tinted specatcles too. We could then try to understand the other is coming from on this very interesting subject. Deal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillieRose:
I don't think God changes. The analogy works (for me) only if applied to the externals of religion.

For example, the Gospel is the same message it was yesterday, and will be the same tomorrow. However, it is not necessary that we present it while wearing, to pick a random example, eighteenth century corsets or first century rabbi outfits. Nor does it require us to present it in Ancient Greek, nor in King James English.

But the message of Jesus is unchanged. "God came down, died, and was resurrected. This was for your benefit." and so on. In any language, to any culture, that is the message.

The externals of presentation change, but the message and the God behind it, in my opinion, do not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillieRose:
What if, to borrow your analogy, the wife wishes to be made love to when she is dressed like herself, wearing her own clothes and her own hairstyles and not clothes borrowed from her friends? What if she sees having to borrow others' clothes to entice her husband to sex as humiliating, or as whoring herself?

---

quote:

---

Seems to me that this distinction - between the message and the externals, between the essence and the cultural packaging, is an important part of what we're discussing here.

---

quote:

---

Is strewing rose petals over a statue of an elephant-being contrary to the essence of Christianity, or is it just a culture-thing (if you'll pardon the shorthand)?

Some here are saying that this action constitutes worship of another god, a god who is not God, and is therefore contrary to the essence of Christianity.

Some are saying (if I've got it right) that although this is a culture-thing, it isn't actually all that respectful to the culture that it borrows from, because it implies that the borrowed element is is a non-essential that can be detached from the essentials of that culture.

---

quote:

---

I sense a double-standard in those to whom strewing rose petals or burning incense in front of a statue of Ganesh necessarily constitutes worship of Ganesh, but who don't bat an eyelid at Catholics placing flowers before and burning candles in front of statues of Mary. If we're willing to give the benefit of the doubt as to what is actually going on inside the person's head - what the action means to them - in one case, then it's not clear to me why it would be wrong to withhold such benefit of doubt in the other.

(And incidentally I wonder whether these traditional devotions to Mary are not an analogous adoption of cultural practices from goddess-worshipping sub-cultures in the ancient world.)

---

quote:

---

This seems to be asking "what if God strongly wants to be worshipped in exactly the way that our tradition worships Him" ?

---

quote:

---

It's a bit hard to discount this possibility on grounds of truth. Is it implausible that God has such a preference, has expressed it, and the faithful have responded in constructing the traditonal Christian liturgies ?

---

quote:

---

It seems to me rather an issue of goodness - that behaving as if we have divine mandate for our own traditions, our way of doing things, doesn't treat others as we would like to be treated.

Which seems to me is much closer to the heart - the essence - of Christianity than any proposition about liturgy.

---

quote:

---

As I understand it, Ganesh is neither a god, nor an aspect of God. Ganesh is an archetype -- a set of symbols that reflect how Hindus understand God (or gods, depending on whether you think Hinduism is monotheistic or not). Ganesh is represented with certain physical characteristics, because these are believed to be representative of the Divine nature in some way. [snip]

---

Yoiks, another level of complexity is added to the discussion

If that is the case, then it's rather similar to depicting Jesus as the Lamb of God or in iconography. Is this how the majority of Hindus understand it though?
 

---

Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
I'm neither Hindu nor can I speak for the majority of them (or any one else) but Crooked Cucumber's take is exactly how I was taught to understand the various Hindu Gods.

It's the same here - the various Animals aren't even called "Gods", they are called Archtypes, and represent certain characteristics of the divine. The way it was exaplained to me by an elder long ago - "Christians have Saints and Angels, we have Raven."

Comet
 

---

Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
I discussed this thread with a friend at lunch the other day and he suggested the crux of this issue is whether or not we view scripture as revelation of God from God to man. I think he's nailed it.

If Christian scripture is nothing more than religious folklore or propaganda, then the commandments that believers not worship other gods have no force behind them, nor are they of any greater validity than any such commandments from other religions, and the entire Christian canon is merely a set of books.

If Christian scripture is revelation from God, then the commandments not to worship other gods do have force behind them and orthodox Christians have a duty to take them seriously.

In one sense, Hart's worship of Ganesh and all of our responses to it have nothing to do with culture and everything to do with one's view of the claims of Christianity and the status of scripture.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:
I discussed this thread with a friend at lunch the other day and he suggested the crux of this issue is whether or not we view scripture as revelation of God from God to man. I think he's nailed it.

If Christian scripture is nothing more than religious folklore or propaganda, then the commandments that believers not worship other gods have no force behind them, nor are they of any greater validity than any such commandments from other religions, and the entire Christian canon is merely a set of books.

---

quote:

---

If Christian scripture is revelation from God, then the commandments not to worship other gods do have force behind them and orthodox Christians have a duty to take them seriously.

---

quote:

---

In one sense, Hart's worship of Ganesh and all of our responses to it have nothing to do with culture and everything to do with one's view of the claims of Christianity and the status of scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:

In one sense, Hart's worship of Ganesh and all of our responses to it have nothing to do with culture and everything to do with one's view of the claims of Christianity and the status of scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillieRose:
For example, the Christian tradition speaks of God as Rock of Ages, but this doesn't mean we imbue rocks with attributes of our deity and worship before them. Would this be an analogous case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:
If Christian scripture is nothing more than religious folklore or propaganda, then the commandments that believers not worship other gods have no force behind them, nor are they of any greater validity than any such commandments from other religions, and the entire Christian canon is merely a set of books.

---

But there are a wide range of views between those two. It's not a binary proposition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:
If Christian scripture is revelation from God, then the commandments not to worship other gods do have force behind them and orthodox Christians have a duty to take them seriously.

---

And even with a less "high" view this is still the case. What needs unpacking is what "worshipping other gods" means - what it meant in the OT, and what it means now.

---

• 1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
• 2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage....
• 3. adoring reverence or regard....
• 4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
• 6. to render religious reverence and homage to.
• 7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
• 8. to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:
In one sense, Hart's worship of Ganesh and all of our responses to it have nothing to do with culture and everything to do with one's view of the claims of Christianity and the status of scripture.

---

I disagree. It has a lot to do with whether we think that Scripture can just be applied as a rule book or whether we think it needs careful unpacking before application [....]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
- at least in my case. I'm getting a little pissed off with the implications that my reluctance to join the automatic condemnation of Hart is down to not accepting or believing Scripture as revelation; it's a lot more complicated and nuanced than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
The negative comments on this thread don't seem at all charming and humorous to me, but curiously extreme. I smell hate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
As I understand it, Ganesh is neither a god, nor an aspect of God. Ganesh is an archetype -- a set of symbols that reflect how Hindus understand God (or gods, depending on whether you think Hinduism is monotheistic or not).... Ganesh is represented in different ways and with different attributes in Hindu iconography, because it is what he symbolises, not what he looks like that is important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:


..I have seen many carvings of eagles and lions and whatnot in English churches (I don't know if you see this elsewhere in the world, or if it's an English thing). These animals have symbolic importance but we don't (I assume) venerate or worship them for their own sake. They aren't idols. But I can envisage that it might look as if they were to somebody unfamiliar with the cultural context.

So is a statue of Ganesh more like an eagle carved into a church lectern, or more like a graven image of Baal? I guess that would depend on what was going on in the mind of the worshipper.

My gut feeling is that it falls somewhere between these two extremes for most Hindus. Many Hindus do, in fact, venerate statues of Ganesh -- in the sense that they perform rituals which make these statues objects of veneration. But don't Christians venerate Christian objects objects-associated-with-worship in a kind-of similar way? We perform rituals in front of crosses, but we don't believe that the cross is God, or has divine powers (well, I don't, anyway).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Feast of Stephen

I have only been to one Hindu Temple, one in Neasden, North-west London. From what I observed there, I believe that most of the Hindus attending were venerating Ganesh and the other statues of the deities present in the central room of the temple complex in a way that Christians do not do with statues of Jesus, Mary or the Cross.

---

quote:

---

Christian churches do not simply house statues where one might venerate God by venerating a statue/s. They host regular services, hymns, sermons, holy communions etc. Churches are not merely Temples, where one goes to venerate a statue of Jesus that symbolises God, offer him some food and then leave, Christians go there to celebrate God via singing, taking communion, listening to a sermon etc.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps he wishes to move Christianity on from it's traditional understanding of idolatry, and for it to become more like Hinduism. If so then fair enough, but he should explain himself to his congregants and to his superiors in the Anglican Church if so. Or if he wishes to convert to Hinduism, then perhaps he should do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Welcome Afghan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And I agree very largely with your post. The only exception I can really see is mission. If I may give a political analogy, Democrats and Republicans should be people who can talk to one another, live together as neighbours, work together in the same places of work or on the same voluntary community projects. But come election time, its pretty unusual to find a Democratic working for the election of Republicans, and vice versa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afghan:
I don't know. This is tending towards a rather adversarial understanding of mission. Winning souls for Christ rather than bringing them to him. In bearing witness to what God has done for us, for explaining our reasons for believing as we do, we don't have to engage in a competitive sport. If nothing else, I simply don't see that approach is that effective. Helping someone to understand what it is to be a Christian is an end in itself. That requires us to observe and respect both the similarities and the differences. It probably requires us - if only out of courtesy - to try to understand what it is to be a Hindu.

And if they decide to convert on the basis of the understanding we help them to reach, they haven't lost. They've won.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Also in the notion that actions may speak louder than words. In any case, at least in my understanding, conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit. We are just messengers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:
How much unpacking does the word "worship" really need?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

[ 01. September 2006, 17:38: Message edited by: KenWritez ]
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
. . . 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.
 

---

Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
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)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:
I haven't yet seen an RC ceremony that offended me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Syncretism bothers me. I don't understand why it doesn't bother him.

---

quote:

---

There is little doubt that the tradition is anti-syncretistic, whether you are Catholic, Orthodox or Reformist.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 ?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Worship ought only to be offered to the Holy Trinity.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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? ", Mary will slap you, and St Augustine will 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.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

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!"

---

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!"

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

Time to let go of this crucifying tendency, I think.

---

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".

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Consecrating an idol seems pretty much like idolatry

---

quote:

---

Fr. Hart's position appears to be that no religion is true therefore we should follow all of them

---

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.

---

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 ?

---

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 ?

---

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.

---

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 ?

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

• 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

quote:

---

Given all this, does He seem the sort to smile indulgently at His believers worshipping another god?

---

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.

---

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.

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 ]
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Seriously(!), IngoB, while I always appreciate your rhetorical vigour, wasn't that just a little OTT?

---

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.

---

• wrong for a priest in orders
• wrong in our understanding of worship

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.

---

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...

---

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
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 

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.

---

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?

---

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 ?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

EOD. Says God. Loud and clear. He's pretty much yelling at the top of His lungs, isn't He...

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Murder, and other variations, limp analogically because their consequences are clearly seen.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
No, that's you yelling.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
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.

<snip>

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:

---

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:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What I know about the "non-realist" position could be written down on the back of a very small envelope and would probably contain error. In general, I don't consider any self declared Christian apostate on the basis of my understanding of their faith bases. If I believe someone's opinions are out of line, and there is scope for a constructive exchange, I simply register disagreement with the things I disagree about. With reasons. That does not determine the matter. Listening to explanations sometimes provides surprising insights.

---

Wuss. Anyway, Rev. Hart is a leading member of Sea of Faith, UK, and he's been identified by one of his Sea of Faith peers as being "both philosophically and theologically non-realist", see my post on page three. So I'm sure we can apply the definition from the

quote:

---

Sea of Faith glossary:
Non-realist. SoF uses "non-realism" to refer to the belief that God has no "real", objective or empirical existence, independent of human language and culture; God is real in the sense that he is a potent symbol, metaphor or projection, but has no objective existence outside and beyond humanity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as issuing explanations, retractions, etc, I think he should speak to his bishop first. I don't know whether his bishop has asked for an explanation. He is the one entitled to an explanation first of all. The decision on whether such an explanation is made public is a matter for them after that. I have no right to an explanation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
If, however, he never apologizes but continues on, and we meet him in heaven under no rebuke, will you be able to handle it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Rev. Hart is a leading member of Sea of Faith, UK, and he's been identified by one of his Sea of Faith peers as being "both philosophically and theologically non-realist", see my post on page three. So I'm sure we can apply the definition from the

quote:

---

Sea of Faith glossary:
Non-realist. SoF uses "non-realism" to refer to the belief that God has no "real", objective or empirical existence, independent of human language and culture; God is real in the sense that he is a potent symbol, metaphor or projection, but has no objective existence outside and beyond humanity.

---

I call a priest which claims that an outright apostate.

---

quote:

---

Post-Modernist. The post-modernist believes that there are no objective facts; there is only language and interpretation. If "God" is a useful concept for structuring our experience, that makes him as real as anything else.

---

and God would be relatively more real to a post-modernist in a non-realist system than to a modernist in a realist alternative. It's all smoke and mirrors if there's no consistency.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
So his non-realist theology, which is explicit apostasy, is excused by his non-realist philosophy, which is implicit stupidity?

The Jewish / Christian claims about the reality of God - as brought to us by scripture and tradition - are not relative, they are absolute. It does not matter one bit whether Rev. Harts unreal god is consistent with other nonsensical ideas he holds about the world. This simply is not compatible with Christian belief in any remotely scriptural and traditional form. You may argue that as an Anglican he does not need to embrace that (although the oath he took sounds like he must). That's fine with me. I'm not particularly interested in a fight about what makes an Anglican Anglican.

However, I may then indeed be wrong in calling him an apostate, since he may never have believed in a real God in the first place. He could well be simply a postmodern atheist who was signed up as Anglican priest. To sort out the precise sins of that process is beyond me.
 

---

Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
To sort out the precise sins of that process is beyond me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
To sort out the precise sins of that process is beyond me.

---

Well, as they wouldn't have any reality in the first place, that wouldn't be a problem.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
IngoB

Thanks for the education - and the clarifications provided by the exchanges with Dave Marshall. IMO, if Rev Ward confirmed that the non realist definition in the glossary did indeed represent his considered beliefs, he would be an apostate. In an odd way, it would explain his actions, but for me that confirmation would "cross the Nicene lines" which the C of E upholds, and so separate him from the faith he agreed to uphold when he became a priest.

No doubt you can see there is a process there which has not yet happened. It can lead to a finding. I enjoyed the "wuss" legpull but there's a decent point in that as well. If it makes me a "wuss" to believe that justice requires such processes and findings, I gladly accept the definition and can wear it without shame. IMO these processes are a better representation of our common faith than, for example, relying on the statements of a third party about the essence of someone else's faith. One person can easily and inadvertantly misrepresent another. So can press accounts of an event. The 9th commandment and Jesus' emphasis that our "yes be yes and our no be no" come very much to mind.

Finally, although I agree that any Anglican might have a concern and a right to ask questions, I don't think a member of the Anglican communion has an absolute right to know the exchanges between a bishop and a priest who is under him. Public interest and the rights of individuals are not the same thing.

Maybe all of this is too cautious for discussion boards? Generally I enjoy outspoken exchanges - otherwise I wouldn't be here. But this is an issue involving a man's reputation and career. So I admit to being very cautious - as cautious as if I was involved in the justice processes myself. Well, you get more cautious as you get older.
 

---

Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :
 
He's now in the Times this morning, although it puts a different spin on things, saying he has converted to Hinduism.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2348095,00.html
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks PerkyEars

Here is a comment at the end of the article

quote:

---

However, not everyone in the Church of England is impressed by Mr Hart’s passion for Hinduism. Pauline Scott, the team vicar of St James, in Stretham, said that she would oppose any attempts by Mr Hart to celebrate in the Ely Diocese.

“We do tend to use Christian priests, surprisingly enough,” she said.

The Bishop of Ely’s office said that it had not known of Mr Hart’s conversion to Hinduism until this week.

---

quote:

---

On Tuesday, the Bishop reported that he had not known about Mr Hart’s conversion to Hinduism when giving him permission to officiate. He said he had been sent a letter from a fellow bishop confirming that Mr Hart was a “safe” person to whom permission could be given.



The Bishop’s lay chaplain, Dr Bridget Nichols, said that the news was “a complete revelation to us”. “The first time we had heard that David Hart had converted to be a Hindu was yesterday,” she said. This was despite Mr Hart’s book, and an article in the Leicester Mercury in July.



“We cannot keep an eye on all our non-resident clergy who have permission to officiate. We cannot know what is going on. They maybe will celebrate communion five or six times a year.” A personal letter did not mean the Bishop knew the recipient. “We take an application for permission to officiate in good faith,” she said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
IMO, if Rev Ward confirmed that the non realist definition in the glossary did indeed represent his considered beliefs, he would be an apostate. In an odd way, it would explain his actions, but for me that confirmation would "cross the Nicene lines" which the C of E upholds, and so separate him from the faith he agreed to uphold when he became a priest.

---

You seem to be confusing Rev Hart with someone called Ward (wasn't that the Profumo affair?). But your comment about the "Nicene lines" illustrates the fundamental problem the Church of England has regarding its identity.

Those Nicene lines probably do mark out the Church's official position in terms of the practices it authorises. But its considerably more enlightened philosophical position regarding thinking about God and personal faith has no authorised expression. It relies on a nod and a wink tradition that looks, if current political machinations get even a little out of hand, very fragile.

That for me suggests a need for the Church as whole to devise a new framework for itself, within which each strand - evangelical, catholic, liberal, (hindu? ) - is officially delegated responsibility for "being the Church" within their own tradition. They pretty much seem to do it unofficially anyway.

The established Church as a whole need not be tied to Nicea, any more than it is to Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam or of any other faith tradition. Its responsibility could be to provide standards for faith traditions - a commitment to God and to truth, perhaps, expressed as a requirement for explicit statements of the axioms in their system and reason in their theology in order to be "officially recognised".

I guess as a non-conformist you'd not see that as your concern, but I quite like the thought, however far-fetched, of Baptists having as much legitimacy in the Church of England as Anglo-Catholics. Hinduism would take a bit of getting used to, though.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Dave

Thanks for the correction - apologies for any confusion. This sort of thing is happening more as I get older.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Dave, what would be the point of the umbrella organisation of British religions, sects and cults which you would call a "Church"? Just to dissolve the special ties of the British government with the Christian faith? Disestablish the CofE, give them some bridging financing for a decade or two (and permanent financing for those church building the state wishes to retain as cultural heritage), and then let the CofE fend for itself.

If other religions feel like entering into an umbrella organisation with the CofE, they can do that anyway - and I'm sure they wouldn't pick the historically loaded term "Church" for it. Do you seriously believe Sikhs, Muslims, and even RCs would be interested in joining an umbrella organisation called "Church" with the CofE? No freaking way...
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
More to the point it ain't going to happen. Those agin include:

C of E:

Con Evos.
Open Evos.
Charismatic Evos.
Forward in Faith.
Aff Cath.
MOR types.
Liberals.

The Anglican Communion:

Pretty much everyone (with the possible exception of the raisin cake tendency in ECUSA.)

Other Christian bodies:

Pretty much all of them.

Non-Christian Groups:

Yep. Them too.

Okay. Hands up all those in favour.

Mr D. Marshall esq.

I'd say that the nays have it.
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I'd say that the nays have it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The established Church as a whole need not be tied to Nicea,... Its responsibility could be to provide standards for faith traditions - a commitment to God and to truth, perhaps, expressed as a requirement for explicit statements of the axioms in their system and reason in their theology in order to be "officially recognised".

---

quote:

---

Perkyears posted:
He's now in the Times this morning, although it puts a different spin on things, saying he has converted to Hinduism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Part of article does seem to give impression that matey of Ely is not one regulars on this site

---

quote:

---

David, the Mercury's cuttings files reveal, enjoyed what might euphemistically be called a colourful time as chaplain of Loughborough.

In 1994, he told this newspaper he was glad he didn't believe in heaven because he thought he would be "bored rigid" sitting around on a white cloud playing a harp for eternity, saying: "Obviously, the Virgin birth and the miracles were all tall stories made up by early Christians to give the faith credibility.

"Oh and, by the way, God doesn't literally exist either."

---

quote:

---

David's move to India was, he admits, prompted by a crisis in his life. He had been made redundant and was barely muddling through the days. "I had quite a big bout of depression," he says. "I was treated by the doctor. I felt I had to do something. "Three days after arriving in India, I threw my tablets away and I've not suffered with it since."

---

actually makes me a lot more cautious than I was before. Clearly Ananda Krishna Das (Ex?-Rev. David Hart) set himself up for the way this has turned out in the end. But apparently, he got pushed a fair bit as well. I assume that he had been made redundant as chaplain of Loughborough University and was then left out in the cold? I was under the impression that he was fairly "high-flying" as far as clergy go, but in that I was apparently quite mistaken. Note to myself: involvement in comittees and organisations does not automatically equate to job prospects...
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Disestablish the CofE, give them some bridging financing for a decade or two (and permanent financing for those church building the state wishes to retain as cultural heritage), and then let the CofE fend for itself.

---

quote:

---

Do you seriously believe Sikhs, Muslims, and even RCs would be interested in joining an umbrella organisation called "Church" with the CofE? No freaking way...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
"Officially recognised" to what end?

---

quote:

---

What - and whom - is this "established Church" for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Remaking the C of E ... on the assumption that some [non-churchgoers] will suddenly perk up and start paying attention strikes me as a somewhat eccentric idea, to use a political metaphor, it's an attempt to construct a popular front but without popularity.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

the current Nicean Christianity filter that effectively excludes the majority of the population.

---

quote:

---

A tiny minority of the population clinging to a form of religion that is at best perceived as irrelevent by the majority doesn't justify establishment status.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
While of course I could say "told you so" concerning his idolatry and apostasy, this bit from the Mercury:

quote:

---

David's move to India was, he admits, prompted by a crisis in his life. He had been made redundant and was barely muddling through the days. "I had quite a big bout of depression," he says. "I was treated by the doctor. I felt I had to do something. "Three days after arriving in India, I threw my tablets away and I've not suffered with it since."

---

actually makes me a lot more cautious than I was before. Clearly Ananda Krishna Das (Ex?-Rev. David Hart) set himself up for the way this has turned out in the end. But apparently, he got pushed a fair bit as well. I assume that he had been made redundant as chaplain of Loughborough University and was then left out in the cold? I was under the impression that he was fairly "high-flying" as far as clergy go, but in that I was apparently quite mistaken. Note to myself: involvement in comittees and organisations does not automatically equate to job prospects...

---

Thanks for not rubbing it in and I appreciate your caution. On a point of fact only, the Mercury article makes it clear that he was employed in Derby University after Loughborough. There have been lots of economies in academic employment in the UK in recent years. I doubt whether a chaplaincy/project manager role in building a world faiths centre was top of the list of continuing roles at Derby University. Maybe he was made redundant from that job - or a later one? I don't necessarily see anyone pushing. The only thing which is clear is that he seems to have been out of parish pastoral work for many years from 1990 (and may never have got back to it).

However one looks at these things, his reported views in 1994 probably did not help his mainstream prospects. The move to India does seem harmonious with his long term interest in Hinduism (going back at least to 1990 according to the Mercury). You can see clearly enough that a move there must have seemed attractive.

But there are lots and lots of gaps - inevitably - and I'm done speculating. One thing is for sure. I'm glad I'm not the Bishop of Ely.


 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Okay, so we have all the thousand year old, mutually exclusive faiths line up to be audited by the government for soundness, PCness or likelihood to espouse the government's pet policies as the work of whatever God you happen to belive in on that particular day of the week?

---

quote:

---

since when has inclusion been the highest of all values?

---

quote:

---

I thought faithfulness to God occupied that place, personally.

---

quote:

---

But according to you, what does justify this is some sort of national supplier of warm mushy 'spiritual' feeelings on demand.

---

quote:

---

There are, of course, those people in all the faiths who would rather serve God than give some people (who don't really care - otherwise they'd have come to church anyway) warm mushy feelings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

What - and whom - is this "established Church" for?

---

All of the people in all of the parishes in all of the country. Just like now, but with the possibility of avoiding the current Nicean Christianity filter that effectively excludes the majority of the population.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Or take the view that the Church of England is in fact more about meeting the spiritual needs of the people entrusted to its care, the curing of their souls, than about reflecting for all time the current management's attachment to one story and one system of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Some people don't go to church because people there spout drivel about warm mushy feelings. My local parish church is not like that at all, but I don't go because the services assume I want to hear traditional Christian things about God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
You are going to have government bureaucrats decide what systems of faith have a proper commitment to God and to truth? At best you will get a mountain of entirely pointless red tape. At worst you will get a state-determined spiritual phasing, patrolled by police and tax office.

---

quote:

---

An "established" church is a violation both of the fundamental democratic principle of separating church and state (which developed out of Christian ideas) and of the fundamental ecclesial principle of spiritual self-governance. To solve this specifically British problem by establishing all other religions, cults and sects is like containing the fire in one house by burning down the entire city around it...

---

quote:

---

As soon as you provide any spiritual content, you'll simply be creating a new state-sponsored religion. (Or is your aim free psychotherapy for the masses?) If your suggestion is that the state should invest into the spiritual care for its citizens, and that access to the funds should not be limited to the CofE, then that's a suggestion worthy a discusson. But please stop calling that funding body a "church".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If their presentations meet certain standards - for example, a commitment to God and to truth, a rational theology, and explicit acknowledgement of what's a faith claim and what is not - they'd qualify for whatever benefits might come from being part of the national Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Dave, I have to admit I still don't have a very clear idea of what you think the New CofE would look like... can you identify any institution in the world that resembles it? Or a series of institutions that resemble it in certain regards?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
So who is to be the censor or inquisitor who decides if these "presentations" meet your standards? Maybe yourself?

---

quote:

---

I, like others, do not feel it is right to vow to teach and uphold Anglican teachings...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Yep. Calvinists needn't bother to apply.

---

How very broad minded and inclusive of you, Dave.

I must say I can't see that there's any value at all in setting up a government office who's job it is to decide what a commitment to God and truth looks like in practice. There's just no way any civil servant would go near that one with a ten foot barge pole. And even if such a body could be assembled, calling it the "Church of England" would stretch the definition of "Church" many times further than you claim it is stretched by the existing CofE, Dave.

Just disestablish and be done with it. I somehow doubt that RCs, Quakers, Sikhs, Muslims etc have any particular interest in any further privileges of establishment than what they currently enjoy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
You've worked it out? What did he mean?

---

quote:

---

It seems like the Bishop of Ely isn't a regular reader of the Ship of Fools discussion boards, or else he would have heard about the latest news of Rev Hart's interfaith experimentation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Yep. Calvinists needn't bother to apply.

---

How very broad minded and inclusive of you, Dave.

---

quote:

---

I must say I can't see that there's any value at all in setting up a government office who's job it is to decide what a commitment to God and truth looks like in practice.

---

quote:

---

I'm glad I'm not the Bishop of Ely.

---

Oooh, if I could be the bishop of Ely for just one meeting.... I'd have his guts for flaming garters.

[ 11. September 2006, 12:59: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
 

---

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :
 
By the way Dave, please can I pitch my tent in your fantastic Big Top of faith? Yeah, like I have any inclination whatsoever to be part of the hideous freak show known as "Dave Marshall's Faith Circus". It sounds like something out of The League of Gentlemen. David Hart has the spiritual credibility of Papa Lazarou. "Hello Dave! Ganesh is my wife now!"
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
people need symbols with fixed meanings to allow communication to happen reliably.

---

quote:

---

they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it... ...my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I'm sure you see that there is some difference between worshipping a statue of a golden calf and worshipping the one true God using a statue of a golden calf as some sort of aid or focus. You don't seem to think that difference a very significant one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
You obviously don't agree. So where are the boundaries of idolatry for you ? If someone chooses to worship the one true God by prostrating themselves before
- a crucifix,
- a cross,
- a statue of a white dove,
- a statue of a blue dove,
- a "sacred heart" poster,
- a statue of St Peter,
- a cubist portrait intended to represent Jesus,
- a poster of a burning bush
- a piece of abstract art
which of them is committing idolatry by your definition?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
By the way Dave, please can I pitch my tent in your fantastic Big Top of faith?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
By the way Dave, please can I pitch my tent in your fantastic Big Top of faith?

---

Nope, sorry. Your presentation would have to show that you had a reasoned theology and explicitly stated faith claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
would you grant me a pitch if I worked really hard at having a completely unreasonable and intentionally obscurantist faith claim?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

I must say I can't see that there's any value at all in setting up a government office who's job it is to decide what a commitment to God and truth looks like in practice.

---

I agree. It would be a bizarre idea.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 ?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

And without any theological decision making power, I see no meaningful reason at all to call this government agency "the Church of England".

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I've never known anyone (except yourself, obviously) to express an interest in such a thing.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?"

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What I'm thinking of is disestablisment really, but retaining the national ChurchOfEngland concept for something new.

---

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...

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

others ever since had to align their own culture with this, which has generally meant abandoning large chunks of the old

---

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').

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
What. Would. Be. The. Point?

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 ?

---

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).

---

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 ?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
That depends how you define 'Holy Trinity' The hindu Tinity is Brahman, Vishnu and Shiva.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
That depends how you define 'Holy Trinity'. The hindu trinity is Brahman, Vishnu and Shiva.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
Cor, I've scored a formulation...

[ 14. September 2006, 23:27: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
 

---

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :
 
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.

---

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)?

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

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.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0