Thread: Purgatory: I spy strangers! Use of church space by other faiths. Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000941
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
I'm not quite sure what to think about this. I'd like to think that it's all fine and wonderful, and that not letting your neighbour freeze in the rain and snow is a good thing. And it's certainly the case that, for all that Muslims are Wrong about God (TM), they're unlikely to decide to become Christian just to get out of the rain. But I'm just not sure.
What do people think? And does it make a difference whether the Muslims (or whoever) are using the church hall vs using the church itself?
(We've had discussions about people running yoga classes in church halls before, and there has been concern that people might think that the church was approving dubious Hindu or Buddhist spiritual practices. I don't think that particular danger exists here - I don't think there's any danger that people can be misled into believing that Islam and Christianity are completely compatible systems of belief.)
[ 18. June 2013, 13:34: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
If Muslims are happy to worship God in a church then they should be welcome to do so. I'm glad that the SEC has been able to do this, and Rev. Poobalan is exactly right.
In New Testament terms the Muslims in this country are Samaritans.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
In New Testament terms the Muslims in this country are Samaritans.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Great perspective there.
Personally I'm completely comfortable with different faiths sharing quarters. It's not uncommon for Christian and Jewish congregations to share space, nor for different Christian denominations.
There are also lots of interfaith services from time to time that welcome people of all faiths into a church.
"My house shall be called a house of prayer for all people" springs to mind.
Some of it might depend on the area, I suppose. But if the concern is for what people will think, I suspect in the Western world, anyway, which is largely post-Christian, it can only impress people that a church would do such a thing. The outside world is SO used to Christians going on about who's wrong and why; they could stand to see Christians embracing others who are different from them without trying to convert them, celebrating at least our shared humanity.
One might ask, "Who are we trying to impress?" Or, "What are we afraid of?"
[ 18. March 2013, 21:04: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think there's any danger that people can be misled into believing that Islam and Christianity are completely compatible systems of belief.
If it were my church I'd feel a bit uneasy about it, as it does suggest spiritual equivalency. After all, the priest says, 'It's never wrong to pray', which implies that a Muslim prayer and a Christian prayer are both 'right'. Interfaith engagement does sometimes give the impression that the differences don't matter, at least to a casual observer who's not party to the sophisticated theological discussions that could be taking place. (Some interfaith discussions have been criticised as fairly superficial, though.)
In the English inner cities the most usual form of architectural interfaith 'collaboration' is a church building being sold to Muslims and becoming a mosque. The balance of power in such cases favours the Muslims, not the Christians, and the Christians have to leave. Perhaps if an arrangement could be reached that allowed both religious groups to use the building I might be okay with that, because at least it would mean that the Christians could maintain their presence in the area!!
[ 18. March 2013, 21:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Some of it might depend on the area, I suppose.
Aberdeen has a fairly small Muslim population, and I think fairly well integrated into the community as a whole. As far as I know, Aberdeen's Muslim's are fairly diverse, as they tend to be in Aberdeen in oil-related, academic or medical jobs. We had Muslim friends in church for our son's baptism. My daughter has a Muslim friend who occasionally attends Scripture Union. My son had a Muslim friend whose father specifically wanted our sons to be friends because we were Christians (as opposed to atheists).
Of all the Muslims we know socially (7 families) all have at least one PhD in the family, (though that might reflect our own academic social circle, rather than Aberdeen Muslims as a whole.)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
In New Testament terms the Muslims in this country are Samaritans.
I think that may be more the case in Scotland than in the UK as a whole.
[ 18. March 2013, 21:27: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
IMO the best compromise is to allow the use of church halls (or other buildings) for other faiths, but not the church itself. That's not to say that people of other faiths are barred, just that if they go into the church (which is a consecrated building) they must respect it as a christian place of devotion.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The Muslims would be Samaritans if they wanted to open a soup kitchen or free clinic in Christian space, which would be fine by me. But Christian churches are consecrated to the worship of the Triune God alone, and a Christian priest's job is to call all humanity to worship Jesus Christ alone.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Zach82: quote:
a Christian priest's job is to call all humanity to worship Jesus Christ alone.
...by leaving others to worship, as they understand worship, in the cold? What kind of call is that?
I do see your point in idealistic terms, but to paraphrase Jesus, "The church was made for man, not man for the church".
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And Christians are 'right' about God how?
And Zach82 - that is incoherent to the point of utter meaninglessness.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I assume there are plenty of hotel ballrooms, elks lodges, and school gyms that the Muslims can worship in. The most that priest can possibly claim is that he is making Islamic worship slightly more convenient.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Would you expect muslims to allow us to use their mosque for christian worship, where we didn't even take our shoes off? Of course not!
No-one's offended, that's just how it is.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
...I do see your point in idealistic terms, but to paraphrase Jesus, "The church was made for man, not man for the church".
I don't think it's right to paraphrase Jesus - what else can we make Him say, which He never actually said?
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I do see your point in idealistic terms, but to paraphrase Jesus, "The church was made for man, not man for the church".
Actually, Lyda*Rose, that is not really a paraphrase, more a reinterpretation (as much as I agree with your sentiment) of the original text: 'After the Pharisees criticized Jesus for allowing his disciples to pick some grain on the Sabbath day, Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"' (Mark 2:27).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've just seen this being discussed on an Orthodox/Anglican/RC board on another online forum (which shall remain nameless).
I don't see why there has to be a quid pro quo. 'We'll only allow you to use our church if Muslims elsewhere allow Christians to use your mosques ...'
That said, I have sympathy with the view that shared resources would be better in terms of a 'neutral' hall or other space rather than a 'sanctuary' consecrated for the worship of the Triune God.
I think it's a gesture more than anything else and an act of 'common humanity' - which is fair enough - and the Samaritan thing sprang to my mind too. 'Who is my neighbour?' Is my neighbour Christian only?
One could argue that the priest is being naive, but what is he supposed to do?
Of course there are other halls and spaces that the Muslims could have undoubtedly used but perhaps it says something that he has offered them 'his' space ... you could argue that he has offered them 'a cup of cold water in My Name' as it were.
My wife is a primary school teacher and had all kinds of hassle with Christian parents refusing even to allow their little darlings to visit a mosque for a cultural visit. There were no prayers involved, no worship ... simply a visit to familiarise the kids with the practices of a different faith and culture. What was wrong with that?
We may have some reservations about some aspects of what this priest has done and it could be misconstrued but I for one take my hat off to him for trying and for showing neighbourliness.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
I hope that the church is charging a fair rent.
I work for a small parish that, but for the income from renting the building to several other organizations, would have closed years ago. Tenants include an Asian congregation, perhaps with somewhat charismatic customs, who use the church on Sunday afternoons. They are ideal tenants, extremely courteous and careful. Except for the several hours that they are actually there, we'd never know the difference. Our relationship is a very good one. We pray for them every Sunday during the intercessions.
But I agree with Zach that if they were Muslims, I would be a little uncomfortable letting them use the church proper.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
Knew a parish used to rent space to a Buddhist community. Nice folks. Paid on time. Helped with building projects. They saved up and bought their own space, we were sad to see them go.
Another parish I was in rented to a different Christian community and there were significant problems with breaking things, disrespecting visitors to the building who were not a member of their community, and putting pushpins in antique Stations of the Cross. Plus they never paid on time.
So basically, as long as their check clears and they're not busting the place up, I'm okay with sharing.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I do see your point in idealistic terms, but to paraphrase Jesus, "The church was made for man, not man for the church".
Actually, Lyda*Rose, that is not really a paraphrase, more a reinterpretation (as much as I agree with your sentiment) of the original text: 'After the Pharisees criticized Jesus for allowing his disciples to pick some grain on the Sabbath day, Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"' (Mark 2:27).
Thanks, you are correct.
And Mark Betts, Jesus started it by seemingly playing fast and loose with one of the Ten Commandments. A much more shocking "reinterpretation" IMO.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Jesus didn't play fast and loose with any of the ten commandments- he knew the true meaning of them. As for his understanding of the first commandment, "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matt 4:10)
I can see the modern, democratic case for letting Muslims worship in a Christian church, but the biblical case presented thus far just doesn't cut the custard, and that ought to be the case made.
[ 19. March 2013, 01:32: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Yeah, and you'll mostly end up with competitive proof-texting fought to a draw and the Muslim neighbors will still be out in the rain while their Christian neighbors have space they could spare.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
This story http://sojo.net/blogs/2011/08/19/tennessee-church-welcomes-its-muslim-neighbors I see as a good example of being a neighbour.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I think Zach82 is correct (and Mark Betts, too, but only in his first intervention).
It's not a question of dueling texts: Lyda*Rose offers a weak gloss of the fourth commandment and Zach82 retorts with the the more pertinent first commandment. Point to the Spaceman.
The analogy, Jews:Samaritans::Christians:Moslems is flawed, too. Jews and Samaritans were squabbling sisters; Christians and Moslems are more like cousins, fratricidal ones at that.
Does the Scottish Episcopal Church practice reservation of the sacrament? How about St. John's, Aberdeen? If so, where does the sacrament house go; where does the mihrab go?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
You might benefit from watching a few episodes of Little Mosque on the Prairie, which is about a Muslin congregation which rents and Anglican Church hall in a made-up little prairie town. The 2 faith groups constantly interact, in serious and humourous ways, and do all sorts of joint things together.
Is it common in other places to have, for e.g., Jewish, RC, Anglican, Hindu, Muslim, Aboriginal traditions participate in joint worship and ceremonies? Such as Remembrance Day (11 Nov)? It is open to all to participate here, and they do.
We also have a bit of expansionism, such as Anglicans attending sweat lodge ceremonies, which is really Christians attending and worshipping in structures* of another spiritual tradition which has easily incorporated Christian beliefs within its worldview.
*sweat lodges are akin to churches, but they are not conventional buildings - I've only been in Cree-based sweat lodges myself.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
No, I don't think it is right to allow non-Christian groups to pray in Christian churches. Likewise Christians shouldn't pray in the synagogues of Satan.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No, I don't think it is right to allow non-Christian groups to pray in Christian churches. Likewise Christians shouldn't pray in the synagogues of Satan.
This is a joke, right?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Praying seems to me the best possible thing one could do in a synagogue of Satan.
[ 19. March 2013, 03:09: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Zach82: quote:
a Christian priest's job is to call all humanity to worship Jesus Christ alone.
...by leaving others to worship, as they understand worship, in the cold? What kind of call is that?
I do see your point in idealistic terms, but to paraphrase Jesus, "The church was made for man, not man for the church".
I don´t understand the situation of these people. Are they living in the streets, so that they are forced to worship in the cold? And if they are in such large numbers that their local Mosque cannot contain them, then why can´t they afford the building of a larger one?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Praying seems to me the best possible thing one could do in a synagogue of Satan.
The Women's Christian Temperance Union used to tell us the worst thing to do within such establishments was to worship Demon Drink and carouse with other demon worshippers. I think St Patrick and several others that I'm far too inebriated to recall probably would agree.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No, I don't think it is right to allow non-Christian groups to pray in Christian churches. Likewise Christians shouldn't pray in the synagogues of Satan.
This is a joke, right?
Certainly not. I'm dead serious. I'm pretty ertain one of the apostolic canons has domething to say about this too.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think there's any danger that people can be misled into believing that Islam and Christianity are completely compatible systems of belief.
If it were my church I'd feel a bit uneasy about it, as it does suggest spiritual equivalency. After all, the priest says, 'It's never wrong to pray', which implies that a Muslim prayer and a Christian prayer are both 'right'. Interfaith engagement does sometimes give the impression that the differences don't matter, at least to a casual observer who's not party to the sophisticated theological discussions that could be taking place. (Some interfaith discussions have been criticised as fairly superficial, though.)
In the English inner cities the most usual form of architectural interfaith 'collaboration' is a church building being sold to Muslims and becoming a mosque. The balance of power in such cases favours the Muslims, not the Christians, and the Christians have to leave. Perhaps if an arrangement could be reached that allowed both religious groups to use the building I might be okay with that, because at least it would mean that the Christians could maintain their presence in the area!!
Is Allah another god, then? I honestly see no difference between calling God Allah or Yahweh. And regarding church buildings being sold to Muslims, they are only able to be sold if nobody is using it as a place of Christian worship - it's not the fault of Muslims! Christians are doing a pretty marvellous job as it is of not preserving their own presence in communities, it's not big bad Muslims forcing them out. Christians are removing themselves from the scene, either by dying out and not getting new members or moving away.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No, I don't think it is right to allow non-Christian groups to pray in Christian churches. Likewise Christians shouldn't pray in the synagogues of Satan.
This is a joke, right?
Certainly not. I'm dead serious. I'm pretty ertain one of the apostolic canons has domething to say about this too.
In the multi-faith chaplaincy at my uni, we often have Muslim and Christian students praying in the same room at the same time, separated by a curtain (because the Christian students are not gender-segregated). I think it is a great thing for us to be praying side by side. Why do you think it is bad?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The preservation of Christian churches as places of prayer to Jesus does not deny the grace of Muslim prayer. But it does maintain that the call of this grace is to faith in Jesus, the one hope of the world.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
gorpo
They might already be in the process of looking for a suitable building that they can buy and convert into a mosque (subject to gaining planning permission). Muslim worshippers in the UK don't seem to remain tenants for long.
I think the situation described by the original poster throws down a challenge to Christians who place the church building on a pedestal. In my old church I heard endless repetitions of 'the church isn't the building' (i.e. the church is the people), but in reality, our congregation like many others was subtly encouraged by tradition and ritual to see the building as 'sanctified space' for our own particular religious tradition. But what about those congregations that worship in rented accommodation? If a congregation regularly hires a hall that's also used by groups of Buddhists, Humanists or Marxists, for example, then what happens to the notion of sanctified space? (A similar question could be asked of house churches.) If we remove that concept entirely it's far easier to imagine sharing a worship space with people of other religions, or even with people who are anti-religion.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The objection is not to praying in a place that might be used for non-Christian worship or profane use. The objection is taking something sanctified to Christian worship and using it for another religion's worship.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Churches are sanctified by the people worshipping within it, not the physical building. If a Christian congregation has left a building, it loses that sanctification - in that circumstance, why should a Muslim congregation not move in? Christ is in churches because of people being gathered there in His name, not because it is labelled as being a Christian place of worship. So I absolutely regard my uni's multi-faith chaplaincy as sanctified space, because it is sanctified by the presence of Christians gathered there. The kitchen, where most conversations and prayers and laughter happen, is the most sanctified of all, and it does not lose that sanctification because non-Christians use it.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why do you think it is bad?
It gives implicit approval to the false religions and their gods and thus causes great scandal amongst the faithful. It also sows the seeds of doubt and confusion amongst those who are weak in the faith. Simply, it is impious to pray with non-Christians. We should be praying for them not with them.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Would you expect muslims to allow us to use their mosque for christian worship, where we didn't even take our shoes off? Of course not!
No-one's offended, that's just how it is.
Of course I wouldn't expect them to. But that's the thing about grace (small 'g' here, though it applies to big-G Grace as well), isn't it: it's something that no-one has the right to expect of you.
There are all sorts of things that I dislike about Islam, which seems to me to be often a rather arid rule-bound religion, but we do worship the same God, and neighbours are neighbours. If I were the Rector, I'd explain that the church was a consecrated place and what that means to us in terms of respect for the space: if they were happy to accept that, then we go ahead. The only proviso is that I would want to know a bit about them and their take on Islam before making a decision, just as I'd want to know a bit about another Christian group who wanted to use the church.
If we were having to pray in the rain and a mosque offered us the use of the space (and I've no idea whether any Muslim congregation would) I'd certainly think about accepting- and if I did, I hope I'd have the courtesy to remove my shoes when I did so.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
just doesn't cut the custard
I've heard of cutting the mustard, even cutting the cheese, but cutting the custard...?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
There are no strangers, no others in grace.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
just doesn't cut the custard
I've heard of cutting the mustard, even cutting the cheese, but cutting the custard...?
You obviously didn't have the same school dinners that I did.
[ 19. March 2013, 07:05: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why do you think it is bad?
It gives implicit approval to the false religions and their gods and thus causes great scandal amongst the faithful. It also sows the seeds of doubt and confusion amongst those who are weak in the faith. Simply, it is impious to pray with non-Christians. We should be praying for them not with them.
Yeah, we must be pious at all costs. You've managed to be patronizing towards both Christians and Muslims in one prissy post. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
What surprises me is that this is the first time that this has happened in the UK. When I read the story initially, in the local evening newspaper, I thought "that's nice" and carried on to the next story. I've been startled to learn that this hasn't happened before.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why do you think it is bad?
It gives implicit approval to the false religions and their gods and thus causes great scandal amongst the faithful. It also sows the seeds of doubt and confusion amongst those who are weak in the faith. Simply, it is impious to pray with non-Christians. We should be praying for them not with them.
Yeah, we must be pious at all costs. You've managed to be patronizing towards both Christians and Muslims in one prissy post.
Of course, because it's wrong to suggest that we shouldn't cause scandal and confuse the weak. And, you know, Christians and Muslims: it's all the same, innit.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
Yet it does remain as a faith position in Christianity. There need to be tolerance towards Christians who hold the more conservative views of Christianity as well for them to tolerate those amongst us who don't.
Some of my friends passionately believe that the faith of Islam is dangerous to Christianity and Christian believers.
They would consider allowing services or prayer by other faiths in a church setting as betraying the Gospel and the message of Christ.
[cross posted with a more snarky but succinct reply]
[ 19. March 2013, 07:25: Message edited by: Patdys ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Thankfully those of a more conservative bent have the RCC and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, so don't need to concern themselves with what the SEC chooses to do.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why do you think it is bad?
It gives implicit approval to the false religions and their gods and thus causes great scandal amongst the faithful. It also sows the seeds of doubt and confusion amongst those who are weak in the faith. Simply, it is impious to pray with non-Christians. We should be praying for them not with them.
Yeah, we must be pious at all costs. You've managed to be patronizing towards both Christians and Muslims in one prissy post.
Of course, because it's wrong to suggest that we shouldn't cause scandal and confuse the weak. And, you know, Christians and Muslims: it's all the same, innit.
Yeah, both groups are human and both groups have brains, and both groups are aware of their differences. And these particular groups are tolerant and kind to each other. A real scandal for poor, weak Christians who should know that giving the cold shoulder is the true Christian response.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
What do the sacred scriptures, especially the epistles of the Apostle, and the ancient canons of the Church say? Surely from a Christian perspective this is our guide, what matters. Ecumenism: at best useless and at worst the tool of the devil used to deceive the faithful.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
There is an inspirational teacher in one of Aberdeen's secondary schools who wears a tartan hijab on Burns night, St Andrews Day etc. She and a friend came to our church Women's group to tell us about their faith and discuss ours. The Women's Group don't meet in the church, but in the small hall. We had joint prayers after the meeting.
Out of curiosity, do those who oppose Muslims worshiping in St John's also think that Christian women's groups shouldn't jointly pray with Muslims in a church hall?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I would say that Christians shouldn't pray with non-Christians at all.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I can't speak for other denominations, but in the Baptist Union the use of church buildings takes place under legal Trusts (see "B09 Model Trusts for Churches" on this page. (Not all churches use this model).
It could be - I'm not sure - that allowing a non-Christian group to worship in such a building could attract a legal challenge under "Breach of Trust" if someone was so minded. (See Section 5 of the document - sorry I can't work ot how to do a direct link).
[ 19. March 2013, 08:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Ad Orientem, what about if you are in the habit of saying grace before meals and are eating with Muslims? When that happens we usually share the grace "May the God of Abraham and Isaac bless this meal" What would you do?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Under such circumstances I simply wouldn't say grace.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Why not ask God to bless a meal in the presence of non-Christians? Do you not think that God can bless a meal they eat too? I very much doubt that the early church totally avoided prayer around non-Christians. Do you not think praying with non-Christians can be a form of evangelism?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Christians praying with non-Christian. So that rules Jesus out then.
By the way do you know why the Wee Frees are opposed to sexual intercourse?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Because it might lead to dancing?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why not ask God to bless a meal in the presence of non-Christians? Do you not think that God can bless a meal they eat too? I very much doubt that the early church totally avoided prayer around non-Christians. Do you not think praying with non-Christians can be a form of evangelism?
Praying in the presence of non-Christians, I agree, is different. My objection is praying with non-Christians and allowing non-Christian groups to pray in consecrated places.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why not ask God to bless a meal in the presence of non-Christians? Do you not think that God can bless a meal they eat too? I very much doubt that the early church totally avoided prayer around non-Christians. Do you not think praying with non-Christians can be a form of evangelism?
Praying in the presence of non-Christians, I agree, is different. My objection is praying with non-Christians and allowing non-Christian groups to pray in consecrated places.
Okay, so a Christian asking for God's blessing on a meal is not praying with non-Christians unless they add prayers of their own.
As for consecrated space - surely anywhere where 2 or more Christians gather in Jesus' name is consecrated? How then can you stop all non-Christians from praying in those places?
Re my uni's chaplaincy, it has not been consecrated in an official sense. However I believe that Jesus' presence consecrates it - and God is the God of all peoples, even non-Christians, so the non-Christians' presence does not somehow invalidate that consecration.
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[QUOTE] Simply, it is impious to pray with non-Christians. We should be praying for them not with them.
This sentiment struck me. Are there no circumstances in which you could imagine praying with non-Christians? I am thinking of events like prayer vigils after tragic events within a community, where members of different faiths might gather to pray silently. I have also experienced in a shared prayer space on campus, in a Christian prayer meeting when a Muslim colleague came in, unrolled his prayer mat at the other end of the room and said his prayers. Our prayers continued too.
Neither of us was silent, but no-one was disturbed. Were we impious not to noisily pray for his conversion?
anne
anne
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Both those things (praying with non-Christians and allowing non-Christians to pray in consecrated places) are objectionable because they implicitly, at least, convey an air of equivalence. As I say, this leads to scandal and confusion amongst the faithful. Such is not good fruit and we are warned against such things. With regards to consecration, of course, it is God who consecrates, but whether or not one believes it is in the form of a sacrament or not neverthless such as place is consecrated for the purpose of divine worship.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
But if God is the only God, then non-Christians ARE praying to the same God as us. It seems incredibly unkind to refuse to pray with non-Christians at all. I do understand the concern regarding those of weaker faith, but overall I can't see that God somehow disappears the moment a Christian prays with a non-Christian, or that He is not big enough for the situation.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[QUOTE] Simply, it is impious to pray with non-Christians. We should be praying for them not with them.
This sentiment struck me. Are there no circumstances in which you could imagine praying with non-Christians? I am thinking of events like prayer vigils after tragic events within a community, where members of different faiths might gather to pray silently. I have also experienced in a shared prayer space on campus, in a Christian prayer meeting when a Muslim colleague came in, unrolled his prayer mat at the other end of the room and said his prayers. Our prayers continued too.
Neither of us was silent, but no-one was disturbed. Were we impious not to noisily pray for his conversion?
anne
anne
No, I can't really imagine any such circumstances. I would shun such occassions. Of course, ultimately a person must follow his own conscience but from a Christian perspective we must also remember that we are also told not to do such things if they are the cause of scandal and confusion amongst the faithful. I believe it it is, the Apostle certainly believed it was and so did the Early Church.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would say that Christians shouldn't pray with non-Christians at all.
In the OP case, it's not being suggested that they pray together. One group prays; they leave; the other group comes in and prays. It's about use of the building at a time in which the Christians aren't in there praying.
Even if a Christian should find herself in the building at the same time Muslims were worshiping there (say she was polishing the silver in the sacristy and upon exit found herself in the middle of a Muslim service), and she should say a prayer, she's still not necessarily praying with the Muslims.
NB: I don't have a problem with interfaith prayer, but I wouldn't, would I - I'm Episcopalian. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
A while back, at the church where I work, we hosted a program called Tools for Peace which is run by some Buddhist monks. They spent a week in residency in one of our transepts, making sand mandalas and using one of our side chapels for their daily prayers. It happened to be the chapel in which we normally reserve the Sacrament; we did remove the Sacrament to avoid giving offense to anyone over it. And I guess it just felt right to do so.
But like Jesus said, if they're not against us, they're with us! (He also said if they're not with us, they're against us; two of the Evangelists seemed to have slightly different interpretations of whatever it was Jesus actually said...) These monks were doing work we happen to believe in, and their mission lined up with ours.
As for Christian churches being consecrated to the worship of the Triune God - isn't the extension of hospitality one form that worship takes?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
As for Christian churches being consecrated to the worship of the Triune God - isn't the extension of hospitality one form that worship takes?
Why not lend it to devil worshippers as well then?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Because "my house shall be a house of prayer" (Matthew 21:13).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
As for Christian churches being consecrated to the worship of the Triune God - isn't the extension of hospitality one form that worship takes?
Why not lend it to devil worshippers as well then?
Can't trust 'em near the cupboard with the wine and wafers in it. They'd like our parish shack - lots of upside-down crosses. Dedicated to St Peter, you see.
Whether they'd lend a mosque is irrelevant - since when has Muslim practice informed what Christians should do?
Linguistic point - Allah is cognate with El and Elohim, rather than YHWH.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The objection is not to praying in a place that might be used for non-Christian worship or profane use. The objection is taking something sanctified to Christian worship and using it for another religion's worship.
Possibly. I agree that one would not, say, swig Coca-Cola from the chalice or use the high altar as an ironing board. But is a church building consecrated exclusively for Christian worship? If so, surely it is equally blasphemous to use a church to hold a concert or a profane lecture?
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Simply, it is impious to pray with non-Christians. We should be praying for them not with them.
Well, I can think of at least one Biblical precedent ... 2 Kings 5:18.
(FWIW I was at a Muslim's house only a few weeks ago where we had a meal and he said grace. Should I have walked out?)
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Perhaps we'll get to find out what the queen thinks of such matters....
Report in the Daily Telegraph
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
One small Anglican church here rented space to a Christian group, founded under the banner of Herbert W. Armstrong, but later "reformed" somewhat. Nice people, left the place cleaner than we did, easy to live with. But we were basically told to leave a diocesan gathering when I mentioned all this, because that church was a "spawn of the Devil".
Hey, we took the rent money and were happy to share with them.
Not quite as "far out" as Muslim, but only just, IYSWIM. Christian heretics are worse than Muslims, innit?
'Course, come to that, as an Anglican, I guess I'm a heretic to some.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Churches are sanctified by the people worshipping within it, not the physical building. If a Christian congregation has left a building, it loses that sanctification - in that circumstance, why should a Muslim congregation not move in?
This is an interesting point of view, but I've never heard it expressed before, despite a lifetime of churchgoing. Perhaps clergy and theologians ought to state this clearly to congregations. Now would be an excellent time, because more and more congregations are going to have to let their buildings out to a wider variety of groups in order to make ends meet. They'll have to let go of their precious attitudes for financial reasons, if for nothing else.
quote:
Christ is in churches because of people being gathered there in His name, not because it is labelled as being a Christian place of worship. So I absolutely regard my uni's multi-faith chaplaincy as sanctified space, because it is sanctified by the presence of Christians gathered there. The kitchen, where most conversations and prayers and laughter happen, is the most sanctified of all, and it does not lose that sanctification because non-Christians use it.
I suppose that psychologically it's easier to see a multi-faith chaplaincy in this way because it's obvious in the name! Noone is under any illusion that the space is reserved for certain rituals and liturgies, and for a certain shared understanding of God. Those who take exception to the 'multi' aspect of the surroundings simply don't have to go there, and noone will miss them.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Last July New York City had a severe thunderstorm, my church was struck by lightning and the tower collapsed into the building. The Conservative Jewish synagogue around the corner gave us space to worship, for free, until the building is fixed - which is probably years away. (We did the same thing for them when they had building troubles in the 1950s.) Interfaith hospitality has a long history in my neighbourhood.
Like many mainstream Christians, I believe that Jews, Muslims, Baha'is and followers of other faiths worship God, but are "in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation" (to quote the Vatican's Dominus Iesus). It would certainly be beneficial for them to become Christian, but prayer to a incomplete and flawed picture of God is IMHO preferable to no prayer at all. Perhaps God, in God's wisdom, will use their prayers to lead them into His fullness so I wouldn't want to stand in the way.
I think our relationship with God is like any other relationship. It's greatly beneficial to have the most complete and accurate picture of our friends', neighbours' and spouse's character, background, worldview, etc., because it forms the broadest foundation on which to build a lasting, intimate relationship. But having misconceptions of others' doesn't mean that no relationship exists at all. Neither does knowing all the facts about someone necessarily mean that one has a strong relationship with them. It's the same with God.
There are many orthodox (small "o") Christians who are wholly creedal yet exhibit few fruits of the Spirit. There are many unorthodox Christians and followers of other faiths who do. Who God chooses to listen to and save is up to God, not me. But anyone who wants to prayer is welcome in my building.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Some of you need to get out more. You defend orthodoxy and orthopraxy to the point that I wonder if anyone is allowed to grow into a real human being within your allegedly sacred space. Would you object to a Cree song to the Creator in your church? Saulteaux people praying to their ancestors before having communion? Would you really want to kick them out? If you do give them the boot, I'm going with them.
Would you object to burning sweet grass, passed around so the congregation can all smudge with it? Would you object to an offering of tobacco on the altar along with the money offering? Like I said, if you give them the boot, I'm going with them. The last one of you can turn off your lights because it's not my light and because I can't see in your darkness.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
If the price of ortho doxy/praxis is smaller then better small than big but polluted with all kinds of weird stuff.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why do you think it is bad?
It gives implicit approval to the false religions and their gods and thus causes great scandal amongst the faithful. It also sows the seeds of doubt and confusion amongst those who are weak in the faith. Simply, it is impious to pray with non-Christians. We should be praying for them not with them.
It is NOT impious for me to pray to the God of Abraham with my Muslim family members.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I am not into syncretism or moral relativism, but the seeds of doubt and confusion are sown in my mind by such extreme separatism that one won't even pray with those who believe different things about God.
It comforts me that a group of Muslims may be thinking "Maybe these Christians don't hate us".
I understand the need to make it clear that a Christian believes certain things that are incompatible with Islam, but I think this can be done in other ways than shunning their presence or their prayers.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Some of you need to get out more. You defend orthodoxy and orthopraxy to the point that I wonder if anyone is allowed to grow into a real human being within your allegedly sacred space. Would you object to a Cree song to the Creator in your church? Saulteaux people praying to their ancestors before having communion? Would you really want to kick them out? If you do give them the boot, I'm going with them.
Would you object to burning sweet grass, passed around so the congregation can all smudge with it? Would you object to an offering of tobacco on the altar along with the money offering? Like I said, if you give them the boot, I'm going with them. The last one of you can turn off your lights because it's not my light and because I can't see in your darkness.
If someone radical were to start a church where all this sort of thing were positively encouraged, I'd be happy with that. Everyone would know where they stood. But you can't blame the people (including myself) in the pews of an 'ordinary' church if we've never heard any sermons, read any speeches or seen any sign from our clergy that our churches are meant to be pan-spiritual places, open to all forms of spiritual expression.
'Getting out more' won't change the fact that this sort of thing isn't happening where I live, and isn't likely to happen soon, although it may be commonplace where you are. The social context in much of England, if not Scotland and the rest of the Anglosphere, makes this kind of religious interaction unlikely at the moment. Some comentators think there might be more cooperation between different religions in the more heavily secularised Western world of the future. I haven't said I'm against that. Interfaith work continues, but it seems to be a special interest for the few.
[ 19. March 2013, 15:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
As we all worship the same God, I don't see a problem. It's only sharing a building that is proposed, not electing them onto the PCC. Mind you, we're so desperate for a treasurer at the moment, we'd accept someone with three heads who worshipped Cthulhu.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
...And another thing - if we keep changing the rules of "who's in who's out," in order to keep abreast of all the latest fashions in political correctness, everyone - including muslims and those of other faiths - will end up confused and loose respect for us.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...And another thing - if we keep changing the rules of "who's in who's out," in order to keep abreast of all the latest fashions in political correctness, everyone - including muslims and those of other faiths - will end up confused and loose respect for us.
Who said anything about having rules about "who's in and who's out".
Let's LOSE the rules.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
As we all worship the same God, I don't see a problem.
That's debatable. In fact I would argue that they don't, that the God they worship is a false god not being the God Christians worship, that they have have Satan as their father.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Blimey - so much for the diamond with different facets theory, then.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
As we all worship the same God, I don't see a problem.
That's debatable. In fact I would argue that they don't, that the God they worship is a false god not being the God Christians worship, that they have have Satan as their father.
What, you think Allah exists separately from God?
Yes, Muslims believe different things about God, and yes, IMO they believe wrong things. That doesn't equate to believing in a false God. If I said "New York is on the Pacific coast", you would say that my beliefs about New York were wrong: you wouldn't say I believe in a false New York.
This talk of Allah as a false god seems to me to align you closer with monolatry than monotheism.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I guess it is different when you have a cultural group moving to your country, who have different habits, language, religious beliefs etc. We have the situation with people coming to the country and supplanting what was here, and the indigenous people were in a situation of loss. They worshipped in their way a creator god, and easily accommodated the Christian message, depending on the cultural group. Much as there are Christian traditions that are eastern, catholic and orthodox and in communion with each other.
Might help to read what you might consider heresy from the Anglican Church of Canada about this, given some of what I read in this thread. There is a lot more diversity within Christianity and Anglicanism, at least here.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...And another thing - if we keep changing the rules of "who's in who's out," in order to keep abreast of all the latest fashions in political correctness, everyone - including muslims and those of other faiths - will end up confused and loose respect for us.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Who said anything about having rules about "who's in and who's out".
Let's LOSE the rules.
In and out of what? We don't need to say that muslims are in the church, we don't need to say that they are right, partially right, or anything particularly "in" about them - we don't even need to say there's any chance of them ending up in heaven.
We just need to offer them a bit of hospitality and shelter from the rain during their earthly error-ridden, satanic and miserable journey to hell.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...And another thing - if we keep changing the rules of "who's in who's out," in order to keep abreast of all the latest fashions in political correctness, everyone - including muslims and those of other faiths - will end up confused and loose respect for us.
Who said anything about having rules about "who's in and who's out".
Let's LOSE the rules.
Funnily enough, it was one of the most evangelical churches in my area, the Baptist church, that got some Muslim families coming through the door to worship on Christmas day. The Baptists do a lot of work with local Yemenis, offering TESOL classes to the women, etc., so that was the connection, but I was impressed that these Muslims felt comfortable enough there to attend a worship service.
I agree with Mark Betts that a Christianity without rules probably isn't going to be very attractive to Muslims. It might be more attractive to other groups of people, though.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
No one is declaring Islam another sect of Christianity, or proposing allowing imams to celebrate the Eucharist, baptise and marry. What is proposed is allowing Muslims (with religious practices that are well-known) to worship at a time when the Christian congregation isn't there. No boundaries are being blurred at all. Two different faith groups with distinct identities using the same building.
WRT to Muslims, Nostra Aetate says:
quote:
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
So the belief that Muslims worship the same God as Christians (but have a flawed understanding of God) is pretty mainstream.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Zach82: quote:
a Christian priest's job is to call all humanity to worship Jesus Christ alone.
...by leaving others to worship, as they understand worship, in the cold? What kind of call is that?
I do see your point in idealistic terms, but to paraphrase Jesus, "The church was made for man, not man for the church".
Actually the Church was made to be the bride and body of Christ. Not sure which Bible you're reading there.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
we do worship the same God,
No we don't. We worship Christ. They do not.
If all Rev Poobalan cares about is people praying, no matter who they pray to, then he should leave the Christian Church and set up some kind of pan-spiritual prayer group in a nice big hall so everyone can have a good pray in the warm. He's recorded as saying "praying is never wrong." But surely praying to false gods is both sinful and harmful. If the Rev cares about Christ then filling Christ's house with people who actively deny His gospel is an insult to His name. The Church's commission is to actively promote the gospel to all nations. Not to provide an all-faith meeting club.
And the gospel isn't 'everyone can have a warm place to pray to whoever they want', but instead 'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life'. The religion of Islam denies this gospel so this religion has no place in the Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would say that Christians shouldn't pray with non-Christians at all.
I'd agree with this in general. We should pray for non-christians with an open heart, and we should pray with anyone if they wish to participate in our prayers to Christ. But the key is that we should not participate in anyone's prayers to false gods. And we should not encourage them with our actions or speech either.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What, you think Allah exists separately from God?
Yes, Muslims believe different things about God, and yes, IMO they believe wrong things. That doesn't equate to believing in a false God. If I said "New York is on the Pacific coast", you would say that my beliefs about New York were wrong: you wouldn't say I believe in a false New York.
This talk of Allah as a false god seems to me to align you closer with monolatry than monotheism.
Allah, as Islam understands him, is a false god, a misrepresentation of our Father. A golden calf built by a 7th century merchant. Islam's concept of Allah has nothing to do with the Christian God, and the constant attempts to blur their identities is damaging to the gospel, and against Christ.
That is the point of denying false gods. Of course there is only one God. But representations of God that are wrong do damage to our faith and our relationship with Him. The Israelites tried to worship God in the form of a golden calf. You might argue that they were still worshiping the one God, they just had some different ideas about what he looked like. But they were soundly condemned though, and with good reason.
Muslims may be wonderful people, with a fervent and rich religious life, a deep submission to ther will of their god and be extremely moral in their actions and attitudes. But they do not follow Christ, or His Father, or the Spirit.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Would you object to an offering of tobacco on the altar along with the money offering? Like I said, if you give them the boot, I'm going with them. The last one of you can turn off your lights because it's not my light and because I can't see in your darkness.
Well, the money offering is for the financial support of the church so offering tobacco, or a button, or some lint, or whatever else you have in your pockets instead of a financial offering is a bit unhelpful, and would probably be rejected by the treasurer.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
But they do not follow Christ, or His Father, or the Spirit.
Well neither did the Jews in the synagogue that Paul went into.
But that aside, there seems substantial blue water between "here, have some shelter from the rain to pray when we aren't around" and an all-faith meeting club.
(PS can you really show any connection between golden calves and fiercely-anti-idolatry Islam?)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Allah, as Islam understands him, is a false god, a misrepresentation of our Father. A golden calf built by a 7th century merchant. Islam's concept of Allah has nothing to do with the Christian God, and the constant attempts to blur their identities is damaging to the gospel, and against Christ.
That is the point of denying false gods. Of course there is only one God. But representations of God that are wrong do damage to our faith and our relationship with Him.
I would say this is blurring the distinction between 'God' and 'a representation of God', which is also a bad thing.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would say that Christians shouldn't pray with non-Christians at all.
I am aghast that you seem to make no distinction between Muslims and Jews. Islam is incompatible with Christianity in having arisen later and in its aggressive proselytism (among other reasons). Judaism doesn't proselytize, but essentially just wants to be left in peace (and we have a sorry history of denying them that right). Jesus was a Jew. If we worship the same God as Jesus did, then we worship the same God as the Jews do. They have no scriptures that we do not also have. Our most central hymnal is the same as theirs, namely the psalter.
I have no problem at all with occasionally going to a synagogue for Friday night worship with a Jewish friend, or to help celebrate a bar mitzvah.
Nor is the Christian label any guarantee of acceptability. There are certain Christian groups with whom I would be far less comfortable worshiping than with Jews. So where do you draw the line and how?
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Jesus was a Jew. If we worship the same God as Jesus did, then we worship the same God as the Jews do. They have no scriptures that we do not also have. Our most central hymnal is the same as theirs, namely the psalter.
Modern Judaism is different from the Judaism of Jesus' day. And in terms of sharing scriptures, back then they had the Torah, prophets, and writings alone, which we share with them. But after the Temple was destroyed they had to 'reinterpret' much of their religion to fit in with their practical inability to worship as directed in their original law. They wrote the Mishnah (Repetition) in 200 AD, and the Gemara (Completion) in 500 AD. Both texts are much, much larger than the scriptures we share with them, and form the basis for all subsequent Judaism.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
We've come a long way, haven't we, from the time when the people of God had no room to call their own? Now we do have rooms to call our own - because that's what a church is, a room - and by God, we're determined we're going to hold on to them.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
As we all worship the same God, I don't see a problem.
That's debatable. In fact I would argue that they don't, that the God they worship is a false god not being the God Christians worship, that they have have Satan as their father.
What, you think Allah exists separately from God?
Yes, Muslims believe different things about God, and yes, IMO they believe wrong things. That doesn't equate to believing in a false God. If I said "New York is on the Pacific coast", you would say that my beliefs about New York were wrong: you wouldn't say I believe in a false New York.
This talk of Allah as a false god seems to me to align you closer with monolatry than monotheism.
I mean that what they think they worship as God is not actually God at all but an idol made in the image of Mohammed who was no doubt inspired by a demon.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would say that Christians shouldn't pray with non-Christians at all.
I am aghast that you seem to make no distinction between Muslims and Jews. Islam is incompatible with Christianity in having arisen later and in its aggressive proselytism (among other reasons). Judaism doesn't proselytize, but essentially just wants to be left in peace (and we have a sorry history of denying them that right). Jesus was a Jew. If we worship the same God as Jesus did, then we worship the same God as the Jews do. They have no scriptures that we do not also have. Our most central hymnal is the same as theirs, namely the psalter.
I have no problem at all with occasionally going to a synagogue for Friday night worship with a Jewish friend, or to help celebrate a bar mitzvah.
Nor is the Christian label any guarantee of acceptability. There are certain Christian groups with whom I would be far less comfortable worshiping than with Jews. So where do you draw the line and how?
Why would Christianity have any regard for Judaism? Christianity has never regarded it as anything other than an apostate sect. I'd no sooner pray in the synagogues of the Jews than I would in the mosques of the Muslims.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
If all Rev Poobalan cares about is people praying, no matter who they pray to, then he should leave the Christian Church and set up some kind of pan-spiritual prayer group in a nice big hall so everyone can have a good pray in the warm.
The Rev Poobalan has the backing of the Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney. Should the Bishop leave the Christian church, too?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Every one of these churches we so jealously guard will be taken from us. Every one will fall to ruin and dust.
And reading some of the contributions to this thread, it can't come a day too soon.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
No one is declaring Islam another sect of Christianity, or proposing allowing imams to celebrate the Eucharist, baptise and marry. What is proposed is allowing Muslims (with religious practices that are well-known) to worship at a time when the Christian congregation isn't there. No boundaries are being blurred at all. Two different faith groups with distinct identities using the same building.
WRT to Muslims, Nostra Aetate says:
quote:
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
So the belief that Muslims worship the same God as Christians (but have a flawed understanding of God) is pretty mainstream.
Nostra Aetate, I would argue, is an heretical piece of twaddle.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
So many churches of one on this thread...
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Let them share the building for goodness sake - it's just a building!
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
They wrote the Mishnah (Repetition) in 200 AD, and the Gemara (Completion) in 500 AD. Both texts are much, much larger than the scriptures we share with them, and form the basis for all subsequent Judaism.
I think you'll be hard put to demonstrate how the Mishnah or Gemara appreciably change the character of Judaism. And they certainly don't supplant the Torah in the minds of any of the Jews I know.
And any chance of you providing a reasonable justification for the golden calf/ Allah nonsense?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why would Christianity have any regard for Judaism? Christianity has never regarded it as anything other than an apostate sect.
Absolutely. And no regard for the blood catholics with their unscriptural worship of Mary. And the Orthodox idolators. And those non-conformists with their nonsensical version of church. I wouldn't want to even sit down with any one of them, lest the faithful get confused and think them equal human beings.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
After all, we share this one with each other. The hostile and the counter-hostile, struggling for mutual benevolence.
To actually be recognisable to the world as Christians, yet.
I share my life more easily with Muslims, Sikhs, atheists and Hindus than I do with the vast majority of Christians of my face to face acquaintance.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Is is possible to be a Christian and not believe in demons - especially demons which manage to divert the minds of people who believe that they are striving to reach God? Demons who are allowed by God to do that?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I share my life more easily with Muslims, Sikhs, atheists and Hindus than I do with the vast majority of Christians of my face to face acquaintance.
People say this a lot. I think it's because, when it comes to followers of other religions we don't really expect anything from them except common courtesy. Conversely, our expectations of other Christians are always likely to lead to disappointment. We'd like them to be more like us than they are; we cringe when non-believers think these 'other' Christians are speaking on our behalf; we recoil at the thought of being lumped in with them and being associated with their behaviour or their beliefs.
It's like a disfunctional family whose members only get on with people they're not related to.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
After all, we share this one with each other. The hostile and the counter-hostile, struggling for mutual benevolence.
To actually be recognisable to the world as Christians, yet.
I share my life more easily with Muslims, Sikhs, atheists and Hindus than I do with the vast majority of Christians of my face to face acquaintance.
Then abandon the pretence of being a Christian, you'll be a lot happier.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
As I already said, preserving Christian places of worship for Christian worship is NOT denying the grace of Islamic prayers. Muslims, without a doubt, are right in many matters of faith. The other side of the question, which is being ignored, is the degree to which Christians can be complicit in the errors of Islam. Saying "Gee, all prayer is good, we need to support each other" is to gloss over these errors. Instead, Christian churches ought to be a testament to the fullness of the truth of the Gospel.
[ 19. March 2013, 20:06: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Christians need to scrape the gloss off their own errors first.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
After all, we share this one with each other. The hostile and the counter-hostile, struggling for mutual benevolence.
To actually be recognisable to the world as Christians, yet.
I share my life more easily with Muslims, Sikhs, atheists and Hindus than I do with the vast majority of Christians of my face to face acquaintance.
Then abandon the pretence of being a Christian, you'll be a lot happier.
Why?
It seems to me that he is exhibiting a very Christian attitude. (Unlike some on this thread.)
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Christians need to scrape the gloss off their own errors first.
Eh? I take it that's not from a Christian perspective. If Muslims want to pray for the conversion of Christians it's no skin off my nose. We pray for their conversion too. From a Christian perspective there are no errors in the Apostolic faith preserved undefiled in the Church by the Holy Spirit until the day of the Lord.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
They wrote the Mishnah (Repetition) in 200 AD, and the Gemara (Completion) in 500 AD. Both texts are much, much larger than the scriptures we share with them, and form the basis for all subsequent Judaism.
I think you'll be hard put to demonstrate how the Mishnah or Gemara appreciably change the character of Judaism. And they certainly don't supplant the Torah in the minds of any of the Jews I know.
Both orthodox and reform speak of 'the oral torah' as PART OF Torah. So they don't supplant it - they are part of it.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
After all, we share this one with each other. The hostile and the counter-hostile, struggling for mutual benevolence.
To actually be recognisable to the world as Christians, yet.
I share my life more easily with Muslims, Sikhs, atheists and Hindus than I do with the vast majority of Christians of my face to face acquaintance.
Then abandon the pretence of being a Christian, you'll be a lot happier.
Why?
It seems to me that he is exhibiting a very Christian attitude. (Unlike some on this thread.)
Eh? By praying with worshipers of idols and demons? Have you even read the sacred scriptures?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Let them share the building for goodness sake - it's just a building!
A CONSECRATED building, Boogie-woogie - we musn't LOSE that.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eh? By praying with worshipers of idols and demons? Have you even read the sacred scriptures?
This is not directed to me, and I'm sure many may comment.
First, have you ever told someone you disagree with, or is from a faith tradition different than your's that they are worshipping idols and demons in face-to-face discussion? It might enlighten you as to the appropriateness of this sort of comment. Second, have you ever been part of any discussion with people who are different than you? Also recommended. Third, asking if someone has read scripture is pretty rude, but perhaps you only meant 'don't you interpret scripture just as I do?' Some people here are rather educated, informed and understand just a few things, and differently than you. You are staking yourself out as intolerant and narrow-minded from what I'm seeing on this thread.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Let them share the building for goodness sake - it's just a building!
A CONSECRATED building, Boogie-woogie - we musn't LOSE that.
You're a good biblical Christian, Mark. Point me to the New Testament warrant for "consecrating" a building.
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on
:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why would Christianity have any regard for Judaism? Christianity has never regarded it as anything other than an apostate sect. I'd no sooner pray in the synagogues of the Jews than I would in the mosques of the Muslims.
Because without Judaism there would be NO Christianity perhaps...
Because Jesus was Jewish...
Because the leaders of the early church were Jewish...
Just a few thoughts. The list could be just a tad longer methinks.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Let's have some consistency here, it is absolutely not a consecrated building in any meaningful sense of the word consecrated.
It is the building used by a fissiparous sect, a disobedient schismatic group, separate from the body of Christ, in which no valid form of the Eucharist takes place and no priest with valid ordination presides. In what sense is that consecrated?
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
As we all worship the same God, I don't see a problem.
That's debatable. In fact I would argue that they don't, that the God they worship is a false god not being the God Christians worship, that they have have Satan as their father.
How sad for you. I'm truly mean that in a spirit of concern, not hellishly.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why would Christianity have any regard for Judaism? Christianity has never regarded it as anything other than an apostate sect. I'd no sooner pray in the synagogues of the Jews than I would in the mosques of the Muslims.
Because without Judaism there would be NO Christianity perhaps...
Because Jesus was Jewish...
Because the leaders of the early church were Jewish...
Just a few thoughts. The list could be just a tad longer methinks.
They were Hebrews, they ceased being Jews at the Last Supper.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
After all, we share this one with each other. The hostile and the counter-hostile, struggling for mutual benevolence.
To actually be recognisable to the world as Christians, yet.
I share my life more easily with Muslims, Sikhs, atheists and Hindus than I do with the vast majority of Christians of my face to face acquaintance.
Then abandon the pretence of being a Christian, you'll be a lot happier.
Why?
It seems to me that he is exhibiting a very Christian attitude. (Unlike some on this thread.)
Well said, Leo.
Wasn't Jesus quoted as saying something to the effect that "Not everyone that says to me 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom"?
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
He also said "no man comes to the Father but through me".
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why would Christianity have any regard for Judaism? Christianity has never regarded it as anything other than an apostate sect. I'd no sooner pray in the synagogues of the Jews than I would in the mosques of the Muslims.
Because without Judaism there would be NO Christianity perhaps...
Because Jesus was Jewish...
Because the leaders of the early church were Jewish...
Just a few thoughts. The list could be just a tad longer methinks.
They were Hebrews, they ceased being Jews at the Last Supper.
I think that is a grossly antisemitic statement and I'd like you to retract it, please.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why would Christianity have any regard for Judaism? Christianity has never regarded it as anything other than an apostate sect. I'd no sooner pray in the synagogues of the Jews than I would in the mosques of the Muslims.
Because without Judaism there would be NO Christianity perhaps...
Because Jesus was Jewish...
Because the leaders of the early church were Jewish...
Just a few thoughts. The list could be just a tad longer methinks.
All those things are quite irrelevant, that is, that they were physical descendants of Abraham. It counts for nothing. I am, of course, referring to the religion of the Jews which by the time of Jesus had fallen so far from the faith of Abraham that they rejected the very God they claimed to worship when he revealed himself to them in the flesh. So no, Christianity need have no regard for Judaism.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Well at least they could get out of the rain. Not coming to the father is bad enough, but not making it to the father *and* being rained on has to be worse.
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why would Christianity have any regard for Judaism? Christianity has never regarded it as anything other than an apostate sect. I'd no sooner pray in the synagogues of the Jews than I would in the mosques of the Muslims.
Because without Judaism there would be NO Christianity perhaps...
Because Jesus was Jewish...
Because the leaders of the early church were Jewish...
Just a few thoughts. The list could be just a tad longer methinks.
They were Hebrews, they ceased being Jews at the Last Supper.
Sorry but I can't see that. They were still Jews, as were many, perhaps most, in the early 'church' until well into the latter years of the 1st century when a definite division began to open up.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eh? By praying with worshipers of idols and demons? Have you even read the sacred scriptures?
This is not directed to me, and I'm sure many may comment.
First, have you ever told someone you disagree with, or is from a faith tradition different than your's that they are worshipping idols and demons in face-to-face discussion? It might enlighten you as to the appropriateness of this sort of comment. Second, have you ever been part of any discussion with people who are different than you? Also recommended. Third, asking if someone has read scripture is pretty rude, but perhaps you only meant 'don't you interpret scripture just as I do?' Some people here are rather educated, informed and understand just a few things, and differently than you. You are staking yourself out as intolerant and narrow-minded from what I'm seeing on this thread.
The answers to your questions are no, yes and no. Regarding the last, the sacred scriptures are quite plain, that the Israel of God, that is the Church (which has existed since the beginning of the world) take no part in the worship of any other god except the one true God. The whole of the Old Testament gives witness to this and in the New Testament the Apostle especially warns us to take no part in such things.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
You're a good biblical Christian, Mark. Point me to the New Testament warrant for "consecrating" a building.
Consecration, in general, is an act by which a thing is separated from a common and profane to a sacred use, or by which a person or thing is dedicated to the service and worship of God by prayers, rites, and ceremonies.
The practice of Consecration is derived from the Old Testament, and it is explained here - including Bible verses.
Holy Tradition teaches us that much of the liturgy in the early church was derived from the synagogues.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Doesn't Paul describe himself as a Jew in Acts? After the last supper?
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why would Christianity have any regard for Judaism? Christianity has never regarded it as anything other than an apostate sect. I'd no sooner pray in the synagogues of the Jews than I would in the mosques of the Muslims.
Because without Judaism there would be NO Christianity perhaps...
Because Jesus was Jewish...
Because the leaders of the early church were Jewish...
Just a few thoughts. The list could be just a tad longer methinks.
All those things are quite irrelevant, that is, that they were physical descendants of Abraham. It counts for nothing. I am, of course, referring to the religion of the Jews which by the time of Jesus had fallen so far from the faith of Abraham that they rejected the very God they claimed to worship when he revealed himself to them in the flesh. So no, Christianity need have no regard for Judaism.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to how I should respond here. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
There I think that just about does it.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why would Christianity have any regard for Judaism? Christianity has never regarded it as anything other than an apostate sect. I'd no sooner pray in the synagogues of the Jews than I would in the mosques of the Muslims.
Because without Judaism there would be NO Christianity perhaps...
Because Jesus was Jewish...
Because the leaders of the early church were Jewish...
Just a few thoughts. The list could be just a tad longer methinks.
All those things are quite irrelevant, that is, that they were physical descendants of Abraham. It counts for nothing. I am, of course, referring to the religion of the Jews which by the time of Jesus had fallen so far from the faith of Abraham that they rejected the very God they claimed to worship when he revealed himself to them in the flesh. So no, Christianity need have no regard for Judaism.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to how I should respond here. There I think that just about does it.
Pray, tell me where I'm going wrong then? Or could just ask everyone to read chapters 17 and 18 of the Gospel of John which is solemnly sung on Good Friday.
[ 19. March 2013, 21:44: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Let's have some consistency here, it is absolutely not a consecrated building in any meaningful sense of the word consecrated.
It is the building used by a fissiparous sect, a disobedient schismatic group, separate from the body of Christ, in which no valid form of the Eucharist takes place and no priest with valid ordination presides. In what sense is that consecrated?
Who, exactly, are you talking about here, mdijon?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
CL, happily, like our fellow catholic Anne Rice. If that would bring me closer to you.
Ad Orientem. God bless you. Er, how do you infer that I pray with Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus? I wish I did. It would be far more rewarding than praying with my fellow very broken Christians.
But that's the table our God has laid before me. I'd even pray with you.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
He also said "no man comes to the Father but through me".
It is Jesus who brings people to the Father -- which says nothing specific about what exact honestly-held beliefs persons might have (mistaken or otherwise) while still on this present earthly plane. Jesus does the bringing, not us.
[ 19. March 2013, 21:56: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why would Christianity have any regard for Judaism? Christianity has never regarded it as anything other than an apostate sect. I'd no sooner pray in the synagogues of the Jews than I would in the mosques of the Muslims.
Because without Judaism there would be NO Christianity perhaps...
Because Jesus was Jewish...
Because the leaders of the early church were Jewish...
Just a few thoughts. The list could be just a tad longer methinks.
All those things are quite irrelevant, that is, that they were physical descendants of Abraham. It counts for nothing. I am, of course, referring to the religion of the Jews which by the time of Jesus had fallen so far from the faith of Abraham that they rejected the very God they claimed to worship when he revealed himself to them in the flesh. So no, Christianity need have no regard for Judaism.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to how I should respond here. There I think that just about does it.
Pray, tell me where I'm going wrong then? Or could just ask everyone to read chapters 17 and 18 of the Gospel of John which is solemnly sung on Good Friday.
I'd say the error is in writing off an entire religion, out of which Christianity grew and without which it would not exist, because of the actions of some. Some Jews responded positively, some didn't, some were just baffled.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ad Orientem. God bless you. Er, how do you infer that I pray with Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus? I wish I did. It would be far more rewarding than praying with my fellow very broken Christians.
But that's the table our God has laid before me. I'd even pray with you.
I never inferred that you prayed with anyone, not as far as I remember anyway. I did say, however, that I don't believe Christians should pray with non-Christians either in their temples or our churches, and I have argued that this is backed up by the scriptures and the practice of the Church.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Who, exactly, are you talking about here, mdijon?
Don't follow. Why do you need to ask? Are you making a point or have you just lost the thread?
[ 19. March 2013, 22:07: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Pray, tell me where I'm going wrong then? Or could just ask everyone to read chapters 17 and 18 of the Gospel of John which is solemnly sung on Good Friday.
Why not go further and quote "his blood be on us and on our children" in justification of your stance.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
They were Hebrews, they ceased being Jews at the Last Supper.
I think this is false. James, when Bishop of Jerusalem, certainly behaved as a Jew, and probably a Nazirite. Peter encouraged Jewish Christians to eat apart from Gentile Christians, and to keep Torah, and is rebuked by Paul for doing so.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Who, exactly, are you talking about here, mdijon?
Don't follow. Why do you need to ask? Are you making a point or have you just lost the thread?
I seriously can't understand you. Who do you mean?
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There are no strangers, no others in grace.
As far as I am concerned the thread should have ended with this. If when we look at others we don't see strangers we don't need "religion".
That is true religion right there.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
They were Hebrews, they ceased being Jews at the Last Supper.
You'd have to ignore a lot of scripture to believe this. Paul seemed to believe otherwise. He talks about the (non-believing) Jews throughout the book of Romans.
quote:
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.
and later...
quote:
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The practice of Consecration is derived from the Old Testament, and it is explained here - including Bible verses.
ISTM from a quick glance through that document, that consecration is clearly demonstrated in the Old Testament, absent from the New Testament, and then imported in to early Christianity from pagan Rome. So I'll treat consecration as a concept that is irrelevant to Christianity, if you don't mind... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
They were Hebrews, they ceased being Jews at the Last Supper.
I think this is false. James, when Bishop of Jerusalem, certainly behaved as a Jew, and probably a Nazirite. Peter encouraged Jewish Christians to eat apart from Gentile Christians, and to keep Torah, and is rebuked by Paul for doing so.
Indeed. Paul continued to self identify as a Pharisee and the son of a (non-believing) Pharisee even during his ministry.
quote:
When Paul noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees, he called out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” When he said this, a dissension began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angels, or spirits; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.) Then a great clamor arose, and certain scribes of the Pharisees’ group stood up and contended, “We find nothing wrong with this man.
---Acts 23
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Christians need to scrape the gloss off their own errors first.
Eh? I take it that's not from a Christian perspective. If Muslims want to pray for the conversion of Christians it's no skin off my nose. We pray for their conversion too. From a Christian perspective there are no errors in the Apostolic faith preserved undefiled in the Church by the Holy Spirit until the day of the Lord.
Then you are wrong in what you take.
We 'see through a glass darkly'.
We need to take the log out of our own eyes before removing the mote from others.
We "Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. And if it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all."
I don't think of them as enemies, but if you do then you can extrapolate from "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
Are you going to be the neighbourly good Samaritan, or the priest who walks by on the other side of the road saying 'we can't let them into our sacred building'?
Or are you going to be the lawyer and try to justify yourself for not being neighbourly to all?
Can't you lend them your building? ---
quote:
Luke 6
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 ‘If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
I'm beginning to wonder how many people who call themselves Christians Ad Orientem would refuse to pray with on the grounds that they aren't "real" Christians....
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Christians need to scrape the gloss off their own errors first.
Eh? I take it that's not from a Christian perspective. If Muslims want to pray for the conversion of Christians it's no skin off my nose. We pray for their conversion too. From a Christian perspective there are no errors in the Apostolic faith preserved undefiled in the Church by the Holy Spirit until the day of the Lord.
Then you are wrong in what you take.
We 'see through a glass darkly'.
We need to take the log out of our own eyes before removing the mote from others.
We "Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. And if it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all."
I don't think of them as enemies, but if you do then you can extrapolate from "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
Are you going to be the neighbourly good Samaritan, or the priest who walks by on the other side of the road saying 'we can't let them into our sacred building'?
Or are you going to be the lawyer and try to justify yourself for not being neighbourly to all?
Can't you lend them your building? ---
quote:
Luke 6
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 ‘If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Who said anything about being anybody's enemy? All I'm arguing that it is not right or proper for non-Christians to worship in our churches or for Christians to worship in the temples of non-Christians, and I would argue that this is backed up by the sacred scriptures and the constant practice of the Church.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I'm beginning to wonder how many people who call themselves Christians Ad Orientem would refuse to pray with on the grounds that they aren't "real" Christians....
I have not and do not get into arguments about who is or who is not a "real" Christians. As far as I'm concerned anyone who has been baptised with water in the name of the Father and of the Son aned of the Holy Spirit has the right to refer to themselves as a Christian. That, of course, says nothing of orthodoxy though, and it is orthodoxy I'm concerned with and endeavour to present.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
He also said "no man comes to the Father but through me".
It is Jesus who brings people to the Father -- which says nothing specific about what exact honestly-held beliefs persons might have (mistaken or otherwise) while still on this present earthly plane. Jesus does the bringing, not us.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Who said anything about being anybody's enemy? All I'm arguing that it is not right or proper for non-Christians to worship in our churches or for Christians to worship in the temples of non-Christians, and I would argue that this is backed up by the sacred scriptures and the constant practice of the Church.
All I am saying is to beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the traditions of the elders.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Who said anything about being anybody's enemy? All I'm arguing that it is not right or proper for non-Christians to worship in our churches or for Christians to worship in the temples of non-Christians, and I would argue that this is backed up by the sacred scriptures and the constant practice of the Church.
All I am saying is to beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the traditions of the elders.
Sigh! So, it's pharisaic to have nothing to with false gods and the religions that surround them? If we look to the Old Testament what's one thing we see? T calamity fell upon the Hebrew people everytime they turned away from the one true God and allowed themselves to be defiled by false gods. In the New Testament the Apostle especially beseeches us to having nothing to with them and this is reflected too in the ancient canons of the Church. This is pharisaic is it? Good grief! To argue such is really a great feat of hermeneutical gymnastics.
[ 20. March 2013, 06:52: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Jewish = from or descended from Judah. That's it. So no, the Jews did not stop being Jewish at the Last Supper - and certainly not Our Lord, who being a descendent of Judah is certainly a Jew regarding his whole Earthly life.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I mean that what they think they worship as God is not actually God at all but an idol made in the image of Mohammed who was no doubt inspired by a demon.
That's still written in a way that suggests you think Allah actually exists.
Let me try another question. From your perspective, the Western church is in error because it believes in a God in whom the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Does that mean that the Western church believes in a false god? If not, why not?
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
But after the Temple was destroyed they had to 'reinterpret' much of their religion to fit in with their practical inability to worship as directed in their original law. They wrote the Mishnah (Repetition) in 200 AD, and the Gemara (Completion) in 500 AD. Both texts are much, much larger than the scriptures we share with them, and form the basis for all subsequent Judaism.
AIUI the Mishnah was the codification of oral laws that the Jews had not previously written down but which they feared would be lost given the disasters that had come upon Judaism. Orthodox Jews believe the oral laws were delivered to Moses on Sinai and have been passed on ever since. That may be historically questionable but at the very least the content of the Mishnah is older than 200 AD.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Who, exactly, are you talking about here, mdijon?
Don't follow. Why do you need to ask? Are you making a point or have you just lost the thread?
I seriously can't understand you. Who do you mean?
He is pointing out that we're talking about a Scottish Episcopalian church. From your perspective they are not part of the Church anyway, and therefore the consecration wasn't valid in the first place.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That's still written in a way that suggests you think Allah actually exists.
Eh?
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Let me try another question. From your perspective, the Western church is in error because it believes in a God in whom the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Does that mean that the Western church believes in a false god? If not, why not?
No, because they believe in the Most Holy Trinity as revealed through Christ even if they are in error concerning the Filioque (as indeed they are).
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
.. Boogie-woogie ..
We don't do "Boogie-woogies (or Bettsy-wetsies)" in Purg.
While the odd few might slip past the guard, the principle is, don't mess about with Shipmates' IDs. There can be gratuitous insult there, whether you mean it or not.
Mark, you might reflect on the fact that the term "boogie-woogie" in urban dictionary speak is used as a verb to describe indulging in a position taken from the Kama Sutra ..
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
It is Jesus who brings people to the Father -- which says nothing specific about what exact honestly-held beliefs persons might have (mistaken or otherwise) while still on this present earthly plane. Jesus does the bringing, not us.
This.
None of us, Chistian/Jew/Muslim/Other have the One True and Correct view of God. All see through a glass darkly. One day every one of us will see God as She is - and no doubt gather together in worship.
Why not start early?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That's still written in a way that suggests you think Allah actually exists.
Eh?
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Let me try another question. From your perspective, the Western church is in error because it believes in a God in whom the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Does that mean that the Western church believes in a false god? If not, why not?
No, because they believe in the Most Holy Trinity as revealed through Christ even if they are in error concerning the Filioque (as indeed they are).
The point is that, unless you actually believe in Allah's independent existence, 'false god' and 'idol' are just metaphors* for 'they believe wrong things about God'. But so, according to your church, do Catholics and Protestants.
The question, afaics, is whether those wrong beliefs matter, and the answer to that can only depend on context. For example, the filioque clearly did matter very much in the context of, say, the Great Schism. Conversely, in the context of arguments for the existence of God, Christians have historically been quite happy to use Islamic arguments (e.g. kalām) in spite of the differences between the Islamic and Christian concepts of God.
---
* Clearly Allah is not a literal idol, given that an idol is a physical object ...
[ 20. March 2013, 08:40: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
It is Jesus who brings people to the Father -- which says nothing specific about what exact honestly-held beliefs persons might have (mistaken or otherwise) while still on this present earthly plane. Jesus does the bringing, not us.
This.
None of us, Chistian/Jew/Muslim/Other have the One True and Correct view of God. All see through a glass darkly. One day every one of us will see God as She is - and no doubt gather together in worship.
Why not start early?
From a Christian perspective this is of course wrong. Christianity does have the "correct view" of God because God revealed himself to us in the person of Christ. That's not to say we understand God fully but that there is no error in what we do understand. But then I guess much that depends upon how one views the transmission of the "faith delivered once to the saints".
[ 20. March 2013, 08:50: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In the New Testament the Apostle especially beseeches us to having nothing to with them and this is reflected too in the ancient canons of the Church. This is pharisaic is it? Good grief! To argue such is really a great feat of hermeneutical gymnastics.
Some hermeneutical pole-vaulting will get you from flee from idolatry to flee from Islam. A bit of hermeneutical gymnastics will get you away from neighbour/Samaritan/Muslims. And a neat hermeneutic on the mat will squeeze past "all things to all men".
There's plenty to keep you fit if you want a biblical justification for keeping Muslims in the rain.
(By the way the muslims will probably find much that they regard as idolatry in the average Anglican church).
(And yes, Ricardus, that is what I meant - thanks).
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Well, thank God we don't let non-Christians worship in our churches, that's all I can say. To allow such a thing is sacrilegous in the extreme, defiling the Church of God with their blasphemies. I'm sure the Apostles are turning in their graves at the very thought of such a thing.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Well, thank God we don't let non-Christians worship in our churches, that's all I can say. To allow such a thing is sacrilegous in the extreme, defiling the Church of God with their blasphemies. I'm sure the Apostles are turning in their graves at the very thought of such a thing.
I think this attitude does a great deal of harm. Out of interest, do you have any Muslim friends (as in people who come to your house for an informal meal and chat)?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
A few work friends.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Yes you did CL: Posted 19 March, 2013 20:25
Like all too many conservatives of all faiths, especially proselytes, you do your position complete disservice by such amnesia and bizarre ipse dixits inferring Hebrew is a promotion from Jew.
Thank God for Tony Campolo! But he looks like he's becoming far too inclusive and liberal to be a true ankle biting conservative.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A few work friends.
Do you tell them how terrible you think their faith is?
eta - the reason I ask is that I have Muslim friends who come round for the evening and we happily pray together. I am a liberal/universalist Christian and they are liberal Muslims - so maybe that makes a difference. But God is there when we pray.
[ 20. March 2013, 09:07: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Faith has never been the subject of discussion.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Not, of course, in the sense of persuasion, no. But in the sense of trying to reach a wider and better understanding of what faith is, yes.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Carry on. I'm learning a great deal from this thread.
It is not, as Tolkien commented on some of what Tom Bombadil had to teach about the Barrow Wights, comfortable lore.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Some hermeneutical pole-vaulting will get you from flee from idolatry to flee from Islam.
Indeed. It's worth observing what the Bible actually says about idols. An idol is not a synonym for another God, still less a synonym for a false representation of God.
Idol-worship is condemned because it's worshipping an object that you've knowingly made with your own hands (Isaiah 44:9-20). Wisdom 13 is fairly clear that although nature-worship is bad, it is not as bad as idol-worship, because at least it's worshipping the works of the Creator rather than the works of human hands. Paul (Acts 17:22-23) seems to allow that the Greeks worshipping 'the unknown God' were in fact worshipping God.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The bishop has backed the church's hospitality to Muslims.
I know of two churches - one anglo-catholic, the other evangelical C of E, who extend similar hospitality. I am sure there are many more.
Islam has extended similar hospitality: quote:
Prophet Muhammad.... offered his own mosque to a Christian convoy from the tribe of Najran when it was time for their prayers....Prophet Muhammad, took a covenant from the seventh century Muslims to protect the properties and freedoms of the monks of Egypt's Saint Catherine's Monastery in specific, and Christians "far and near," in general
wrote Dr. Faheem Younus
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
After all, we share this one with each other. The hostile and the counter-hostile, struggling for mutual benevolence.
To actually be recognisable to the world as Christians, yet.
I share my life more easily with Muslims, Sikhs, atheists and Hindus than I do with the vast majority of Christians of my face to face acquaintance.
Then abandon the pretence of being a Christian, you'll be a lot happier.
Why?
It seems to me that he is exhibiting a very Christian attitude. (Unlike some on this thread.)
Eh? By praying with worshipers of idols and demons? Have you even read the sacred scriptures?
Of all the major world religions, Islam is the most anti-idol worship.
I wonder if you know anything at all about Islam.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why would Christianity have any regard for Judaism? Christianity has never regarded it as anything other than an apostate sect. I'd no sooner pray in the synagogues of the Jews than I would in the mosques of the Muslims.
Because without Judaism there would be NO Christianity perhaps...
Because Jesus was Jewish...
Because the leaders of the early church were Jewish...
Just a few thoughts. The list could be just a tad longer methinks.
All those things are quite irrelevant, that is, that they were physical descendants of Abraham. It counts for nothing. I am, of course, referring to the religion of the Jews which by the time of Jesus had fallen so far from the faith of Abraham that they rejected the very God they claimed to worship when he revealed himself to them in the flesh. So no, Christianity need have no regard for Judaism.
St. Paul had considerable regard for Judaism - perhaps, in your view, he wasn't a proper Christian.
At least you haven't dragged up the blood libel yet.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why would Christianity have any regard for Judaism? Christianity has never regarded it as anything other than an apostate sect. I'd no sooner pray in the synagogues of the Jews than I would in the mosques of the Muslims.
Because without Judaism there would be NO Christianity perhaps...
Because Jesus was Jewish...
Because the leaders of the early church were Jewish...
Just a few thoughts. The list could be just a tad longer methinks.
All those things are quite irrelevant, that is, that they were physical descendants of Abraham. It counts for nothing. I am, of course, referring to the religion of the Jews which by the time of Jesus had fallen so far from the faith of Abraham that they rejected the very God they claimed to worship when he revealed himself to them in the flesh. So no, Christianity need have no regard for Judaism.
St. Paul had considerable regard for Judaism - perhaps, in your view, he wasn't a proper Christian.
At least you haven't dragged up the blood libel yet.
The Apostle himself affirms that being a Jew accounts for nothing, that it is faith which makes one a true descendant of Abraham. He also affirms that the Jews are cut off and that if they wish to belong to the Israel of God, which is the Church, then they must convert to Christ. In the meantime they are blind. There is only one theological imperative Christianity has with regards to Judaism and that is to pray for the conversion of the Jews.
[ 20. March 2013, 10:31: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
And to regard them as our neighbour.
And do to treat them as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am a liberal/universalist Christian
But, Boogie, I would guess that means you're not a Christan at all in Ad Orientem's eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Idol-worship is condemned because it's worshipping an object that you've knowingly made with your own hands (Isaiah 44:9-20). Wisdom 13 is fairly clear that although nature-worship is bad, it is not as bad as idol-worship, because at least it's worshipping the works of the Creator rather than the works of human hands.
Or the worship of one own's narrowly rigid set-in-stone theological interpretations.
[ 20. March 2013, 10:51: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And to regard them as our neighbour.
And do to treat them as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
We should treat all people as such, yet that does not mean allowing non-Christians to worship in our churches.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am a liberal/universalist Christian
I would guess that means you're not a Christan at all in Ad Orienem's eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Idol-worship is condemned because it's worshipping an object that you've knowingly made with your own hands (Isaiah 44:9-20). Wisdom 13 is fairly clear that although nature-worship is bad, it is not as bad as idol-worship, because at least it's worshipping the works of the Creator rather than the works of human hands.
Or the worship of one own's narrowly rigid set-in-stone theological interpretations.
I have not and do not get involved in telling people if they're Christians or not as I have already pointed out earlier in the thread. As I also pointed out earlier my only concern is orthodoxy. The faith was "delivered once to the saints" and therefore anything new cannot be true but rather a depature from the Apostolic faith.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And to regard them as our neighbour.
And do to treat them as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
We should treat all people as such, yet that does not mean allowing non-Christians to worship in our churches.
We were discussing theological imperatives. It seems to me that our theological imperatives regarding the Jews go rather further than praying for their conversion.
Secondly I would consider it a kindness if a non-Christian offered me shelter when I came out to pray. Therefore it might mean allowing non-Christians use of our churches in some situations.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
There we shall have to agree to disagree because, quite simply, we will never agree.
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
Somehow the debate has turned to the theology of religions - a Christian topic. May I introduce an aspect regarding the case in question in the OP? And aspect that to my surprise has not been discussed? Taking a look at it not from the p.o.v. of Christian theology but from the Islamic perspective. Taking that into account it becomes clear that Muslims praying in a church is a case of dangerous hospitality.
And it is not comparable to sharing a building with other faiths. There are specific central elements in Muslim religion (and not others') that one should be aware of before taking such a step.
For Islamic tradition the fact that a specific spot has been prayed in, is the foundation of a claim that this spot or building is terra islamica. This is why old and not-so-old legends e.g. about the conquest of Jerusalem point out the places where the conquering Kalif did and did not pray. Eutychios of Alexandria describes how the Kalif Omar rides into Jerusalem after its conquest. The Kalif refuses to pray in the church on Jesus' tomb, despite being invited. This story is told in order to explain why the church is still there and not a mosque, despite centuries of Muslim rule (from a pious Muslim p.o.v. this church requires an explanation).
There is a long tradition in Islamic theology of the whole concept of "appropriating land by prayer".
To this day churches are expropriated in Muslim lands with the argument that Muslim prayer has been performed there. I was first alerted to this by Bishop Mano Rumalshah (former director of CMS and bishop of Peshawar). He often spoke about how in his homeland Pakistan Muslims would try to pray on cemeteries around the church - in an attempt to then claim this land and later the church. Sometimes successfully if the Christians could not prevent them from doing so.
In 1965 Turkish Muslims were allowed to perform a Ramdan-closing prayer in the Cologne Cathedral. How suprised was the Archbishop when later a delegation came to thank him for rendering the cathedral to the Muslim community. Some had seriously assumed that the cathedral had been handed over and now become a Muslim place belonging to them.
The current Muslims in Aberdeen may be nice and civilised and tolerant and never dream of the above. But they won't be the last and only Muslims there. And one day when the Muslims are more numerous and the not-so-nice sections, the louder, more intolerant, triumphalist, traditionalists will take control of their community they may well remember that this church should by right be theirs.
Letting Muslims pray in a church is another example of our societies' and churches' utter naďveté and stupidity in dealing with Muslims in our midst. Somehow in our secularised context we simply cannot imagine that other people take their faith utterly seriously, are community-oriented rather than individualised and that other religions have no notion of religion as a matter of the "private realm" but that politics and religion are one and the same thing. Because Allah wants to order the whole of society, not just his flock. Sharing churches risks giving them up in the long run. Better to sell them outright - in that case at least we can see what is happening and what kind of society we are headed towards.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Well, thank God we don't let non-Christians worship in our churches, that's all I can say. To allow such a thing is sacrilegous in the extreme, defiling the Church of God with their blasphemies. I'm sure the Apostles are turning in their graves at the very thought of such a thing.
Hmm. Well, we once had a Muslim guy visit my little evangelical Anglican church, he was a friend of one of my fellow worshippers. He wasn't in traditional garb, and he just sat in the pew quietly and observed. I would sincerely hope that my little church would welcome anyone of all faiths and none. An atheist friend came to hear me preach once. Whenever I've visited another place of worship - a Reformed synagogue, a mosque, Sikh temple - I have respectfully observed their rules. I would expect a person of another faith to be courteous and respectful when visiting my church.
I also believe in the gospel, and the power of the gospel. I don't believe we should water down the truth of the gospel. That is not the same thing as not being welcoming, courteous and friendly. Jesus' approach to the Samaritan woman is a fantastic model, and the one we should follow. He told her the truth, but with love and respect, and did not reject her as a person.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Apostle himself affirms that being a Jew accounts for nothing, that it is faith which makes one a true descendant of Abraham. He also affirms that the Jews are cut off and that if they wish to belong to the Israel of God, which is the Church, then they must convert to Christ.
If a Jewish person comes to accept Jesus as the Messiah, they do not have to stop being Jewish. (How on earth could they?!) This is a point of primary importance. I know many Messianic Jews: these folk are ethnically Jewish through and through, yet have come to profess faith in Jesus as their Messiah. They are caught in a cleft stick: misunderstood and often rejected by their fellow Jews, they are also misunderstood by Christians who take the line you do. I believe this to be a profound mis-interpretation of Romans 9-11, and it has had terrible results. The Apostle Paul would be horrified to know how some of his words have been interpreted through the ages by the Church he loved.
Some pertinent quotes from Romans 11:
"11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
[Note: future tense].
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable." Bolding mine.
If the Abrahamic covenant is null and void, if God can just carelessly toss off His ancient people as if they mean nothing to Him any more, then He is not a God who can be trusted. He is not a God who keeps His promises. As a Gentile Christian, I am glad and grateful to be grafted in.
As an evangelical, I'll put my cards on the table: I do regard Judaism as in a different category to Islam. Old Testament Judaism is the 'mother faith'. Jesus is the fulfilment. I do believe that Islam is false in a way that Judaism isn't. This does NOT mean I would ever treat a Muslim disrespectfully because I disagreed with their theology. It must be remembered that a devout Muslim also regards me - and the Jews - as being wrong!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Somehow in our secularised context we simply cannot imagine that other people take their faith utterly seriously, are community-oriented rather than individualised and that other religions have no notion of religion as a matter of the "private realm" but that politics and religion are one and the same thing.
I have heard some atheists talk about the perils of tolerating Christianity in the same way. What would your argument be with them?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Laurelin,
Concerning the first part, I am not referring to non-Christian just entering a church. That I have have no real problem with as long as it is done respectfully. What I am objecting to is non-Christians worshiping in churches.
As for the Jews, the old convenant is dead as the Apostle himself confirms (in his epistle to the Ephesians if I remember correctly, and elsewhere). There is and always has only ever been one true Israel of God from the beginning of the world. This is the Church. This is the faith the Church has received. It is in the Church that God's promises are fulfilled, Abraham's true descendants in faith.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
Regarding the use of the building itself, as a non-comformist I worry little about questions of consecration. What concerns me is that by the action of inviting muslims to pray according to their false religion, the Church is a) making it seem that we approve of their religion and consider it equal, similar or as efficacious to our own. And b) encouraging, aiding, and abetting the practices of a false religion.
Now both of these are negated if you do not think that Islam is a false religion. If you are a Christian whose theology is so liberal that you believe that Islam is just another way of worshipping our God, then obviously this opposition to it seems to you to just be another bit of petty posturing between brothers.
But is this the case? Is Islam just a 7th century arabian form of worshipping God, like Christianity is a 1st century Israelite sect's form? Are both just different ways of approaching the One God. As much as many people would like to reinterpret it as this, I'm afraid it is just not true. It is true that Islam was constructed out of bits and pieces of both Christianity and Judaism, as well as mixed in with pagan worship practices of the local tribes. It was a construction by Mohammed so that the local tribes could look on his construction and see a god that they recognised, that wasn't so alien to their ideas of what god should be.
But God said that we should not worship what we have made (not just statues made out of gold mdijon, strange as it may seem we can construct representations of God out of words and ideas just as easily - if not easier) but Himself alone. The Jews went so far as to ban even the pronouncement of His name, in case that became an idol (which later in kabbalah it did - many mystics using God's name or combinations of it in magical rites).
In orthodox Christianity the only representation of God that God has given us to worship is His Son, Jesus Christ, and the only representation of the Father we should use is his revealed word to us about Himself, His Spirit, and his Son in Holy Scripture. If anyone, however faithful or spiritual, makes anything else that presents God differently then they are false prophets, peddling idolotrous ideas.
Many on this thread don't accept this theology of the fundamental difference between following God Himself and following one's own created god. But warning against false prophets and those who run after them are a common theme in the Bible. It is one of the most urgent warnings, not to fall for the lies of those who speak about God only from their own imaginations. Read Esekiel 13:
quote:
Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: ‘Hear the word of the Lord! This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! our prophets, Israel, are like jackals among ruins...Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. Even though the Lord has not sent them, they say, “The Lord declares,” and expect him to fulfill their words. Have you not seen false visions and uttered lying divinations when you say, “The Lord declares,” though I have not spoken?...My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations.
And in 2 Peter 2: quote:
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Laurelin,
Concerning the first part, I am not referring to non-Christian just entering a church. That I have have no real problem with as long as it is done respectfully. What I am objecting to is non-Christians worshiping in churches.
OK, understood. There is a difference between welcoming those of other faiths or no faith at all, and allowing prayers of other faiths on Christian premises. The latter I would be very cautious about, personally.
I also want to know whether other faiths would be happy about Christians praying to Christ on their premises.
quote:
As for the Jews, the old convenant is dead as the Apostle himself confirms (in his epistle to the Ephesians if I remember correctly, and elsewhere). There is and always has only ever been one true Israel of God from the beginning of the world. This is the Church. This is the faith the Church has received. It is in the Church that God's promises are fulfilled, Abraham's true descendants in faith.
This is classic Replacement Theology. I understand it, but I also believe there is something seriously deficient in this theology, since it has resulted, in ages past, in an anti-Semitism perpetuated by the Church.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
It is not "replacement" theology. We do not say that the Church has replaced Israel, we say that the Church is Israel and always has been.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It is not "replacement" theology. We do not say that the Church has replaced Israel, we say that the Church is Israel and always has been.
Why, then, why do you think God bothered with the Jews and the Mosaic Covenant in the first place? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Did they just stop being 'the Church'? Do you believe that the Church is made up of redeemed Jews and Gentiles?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Laurelin,
Concerning the first part, I am not referring to non-Christian just entering a church. That I have have no real problem with as long as it is done respectfully. What I am objecting to is non-Christians worshiping in churches.
As for the Jews, the old convenant is dead as the Apostle himself confirms (in his epistle to the Ephesians if I remember correctly, and elsewhere). There is and always has only ever been one true Israel of God from the beginning of the world. This is the Church. This is the faith the Church has received. It is in the Church that God's promises are fulfilled, Abraham's true descendants in faith.
Doubt it's anywhere in Ephesians - indeed, anywhere at all. God's covenant is irrevocable. Romans 11: the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
That is why Marcionism was pronounced to be heretical.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It is not "replacement" theology. We do not say that the Church has replaced Israel, we say that the Church is Israel and always has been.
That is classic replacement theology: quote:
1. Israel (the Jewish people and the land) has been replaced by the Christian Church in the purposes of God, or, more precisely, the Church is the historic continuation of Israel to the exclusion of the former.....5. The promises, covenants and blessings ascribed to Israel in the Bible have been taken away from the Jews and given to the Church, which has superseded them. However, the Jews are subject to the curses found in the Bible, as a result of their rejection of Christ.
The Error Of Replacement Theology - Clarence H. Wagner, Jr
In any case, the 'promises' refer to land, territory (a problem in itself for the palestinians) and are not capable of being spiritualised away.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I'll dig it up for you shortly when I get home. Yes, the Old Covenant is dead. We now have a New Covenant in its stead and all the promises are fulfilled in the context of that New Covenant. Being a Jew means nothing. A true descendant of Abraham is one who had faith. The scriptutes affirm this, so do the ancient liturgies and canons, the Fathers etc. To deny this shows that one had not understood the Gospel at all.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Hawk, on that basis you would describe the worship of any representation of God you disagreed with as a golden calf or an idol.
There's certainly a parallel, but it strikes me as unhelpful to leap in with the label "golden calf" without unpacking any of that in discussion.
I would also wonder how doctrinally divergent someone has to get before their representation of God acquires "golden calf" status.
It seems like quite a gymnasts leap to use in order to apply verses about idolatry to Muslims. Ironically, they would regard many of the statues they see in churches as idolatrous. Arguably on far more objective grounds.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Leo,
The land is and always was only a figure. That the Jews lived there for a while under the Old Covenant was always dependant upon them being faithful.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'll dig it up for you shortly when I get home. Yes, the Old Covenant is dead. We now have a New Covenant in its stead and all the promises are fulfilled in the context of that New Covenant. Being a Jew means nothing. A true descendant of Abraham is one who had faith. The scriptutes affirm this, so do the ancient liturgies and canons, the Fathers etc. To deny this shows that one had not understood the Gospel at all.
I understand the Gospel just fine, and I thank God with all my heart for His great grace. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Being a Jew means 'nothing'? This is so strange, when we Christians read a Bible written almost exclusively by Jews (apart from Luke) and we worship a specifically Jewish Saviour.
What would you say to a Jewish person who professes faith in Jesus as their Messiah, then? Do you honestly think they have somehow magically stopped being Jewish?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Ad Orientem, does it concern you that you sound rather like a Christian justification for anti-semitism? Does anti-semitism seem like a danger to be avoided to you or is it just a fictitious accusation to confuse the faithful?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Well, thank God we don't let non-Christians worship in our churches, that's all I can say. To allow such a thing is sacrilegous in the extreme, defiling the Church of God with their blasphemies. I'm sure the Apostles are turning in their graves at the very thought of such a thing.
I rather suspect the Apostles are turning in their graves at our misuse of the word 'Church'. The Church - ecclesia in the Greek - originally referred to a group of people, not a physical building. A church (i.e. group of Christians) in a certain place might own a building, but IMO that doesn't alter the fundamental nature of that building - it's still just a pile of bricks or whatever.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What concerns me is that by the action of inviting muslims to pray according to their false religion, the Church is a) making it seem that we approve of their religion and consider it equal, similar or as efficacious to our own. And b) encouraging, aiding, and abetting the practices of a false religion.
Now both of these are negated if you do not think that Islam is a false religion.
As it happens I think that Islam is wrong about God and about Jesus, and I don't take a liberal/relativist view. On the other hand I think that the way to communicate this is politely and respectfully, and not by turning down the opportunity to show Muslims the kindness of offering shelter from the rain when they pray.
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on
:
Posted by Ad Orientem
quote:
I have not and do not get involved in telling people if they're Christians or not as I have already pointed out earlier in the thread. As I also pointed out earlier my only concern is orthodoxy. The faith was "delivered once to the saints" and therefore anything new cannot be true but rather a depature from the Apostolic faith.
Do you have a cut off year for when any thing 'new' is considered to be wrong? If not how do you judge what is orthodox?
If so how would you justify that date?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Ad Orientem, does it concern you that you sound rather like a Christian justification for anti-semitism? Does anti-semitism seem like a danger to be avoided to you or is it just a fictitious accusation to confuse the faithful?
An interesting use of the term. Being Jewish carries no special favour with God. Neither does being a Gentile (does that make me anti-Gentile too?) It is faith that makes a person a true descendant of Abraham and it is faith that God takes into account.
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Ad Orientem, does it concern you that you sound rather like a Christian justification for anti-semitism? Does anti-semitism seem like a danger to be avoided to you or is it just a fictitious accusation to confuse the faithful?
An interesting use of the term. Being Jewish carries no special favour with God. Neither does being a Gentile (does that make me anti-Gentile too?) It is faith that makes a person a true descendant of Abraham and it is faith that God takes into account.
I think mdijon was careful to use the phrase 'sounds like anti-semitism' which doesn't carry the accusation that you are anti-semitic, but that what you are saying could be construed as such. Sage advice I'd say and something I was thinking about myself.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'll dig it up for you shortly when I get home. Yes, the Old Covenant is dead. We now have a New Covenant in its stead and all the promises are fulfilled in the context of that New Covenant. Being a Jew means nothing. A true descendant of Abraham is one who had faith. The scriptutes affirm this, so do the ancient liturgies and canons, the Fathers etc. To deny this shows that one had not understood the Gospel at all.
I understand the Gospel just fine, and I thank God with all my heart for His great grace.
Being a Jew means 'nothing'? This is so strange, when we Christians read a Bible written almost exclusively by Jews (apart from Luke) and we worship a specifically Jewish Saviour.
What would you say to a Jewish person who professes faith in Jesus as their Messiah, then? Do you honestly think they have somehow magically stopped being Jewish?
First of all the passage I was thinking of was from the Epistle to the Colossians not the Ephesians. Neverthless the Apostle writes "when you were dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh; he hath quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross". Here the Apostle is telling us that the Old Covenant came to an end with the cross.
Being Jewish carries no special favour with God. Neither does being a Gentile. It is faith that carries favour with God and it is faith that makes a person a true descendant of Abraham.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Ad Orientem, does it concern you that you sound rather like a Christian justification for anti-semitism? Does anti-semitism seem like a danger to be avoided to you or is it just a fictitious accusation to confuse the faithful?
An interesting use of the term. Being Jewish carries no special favour with God. Neither does being a Gentile (does that make me anti-Gentile too?) It is faith that makes a person a true descendant of Abraham and it is faith that God takes into account.
I think mdijon was careful to use the phrase 'sounds like anti-semitism' which doesn't carry the accusation that you are anti-semitic, but that what you are saying could be construed as such. Sage advice I'd say and something I was thinking about myself.
Well, to be honest I could care less what other people think if what they are thinking is nonsense. Therefore if anyone thinks what I'm saying is anti-semitic (though not necessarily by anyone here then) let them.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Hawk, on that basis you would describe the worship of any representation of God you disagreed with as a golden calf or an idol.
There is of course a danger of that. We all need to be careful that we do not base our opposition to something just on our personal disagreement with it, but on what the Bible says. That is why in my first post I made sure to focus on Christ. He is the dividing line between Christians and Muslims. Anyone who denies Christ denies God. Therefore any representation of God that rejects His Son and His Salvation is a false representation.
Therefore whatever my personal feelings about Muslims, I must stand by that fundamental truth. I think that many Muslims and Jews are fervent and faithful seekers after God. But their religions, and their following of false prophets who deny Christ have led them astray. It is a tragedy. But it won’t be helped by pretending that the chasm between us does not exist, that they are still on the narrow path to salvation, when they are certainly not.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
There's certainly a parallel, but it strikes me as unhelpful to leap in with the label "golden calf" without unpacking any of that in discussion.
Perhaps. I was hoping people would choose to pick up on the parallel and think about it themselves without rejecting it out of hand.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I would also wonder how doctrinally divergent someone has to get before their representation of God acquires "golden calf" status.
The Israelites’ calf was doctrinally relatively correct. It presented God as powerful, strong, flawless, precious, and recognised his deliverance of them out of Egypt. In their naivety they were probably quite surprised when God rejected it. They were doing their best to represent God as well as they knew how.
The problem is that God cannot be represented by humans, because nothing we create will ever be a good enough representation. Any construction of humankind can be an idol. If we worship our construction rather than God Himself.
How do we know that our worship is of God, rather than of our own construction? The Bible gives us the answer. Jesus Christ. If we know Him then we know the Father. Whatever our doctrinal divergence, as long as we follow Christ, and believe in Him then we are not worshipping our own construction but the Living God.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems like quite a gymnasts leap to use in order to apply verses about idolatry to Muslims. Ironically, they would regard many of the statues they see in churches as idolatrous. Arguably on far more objective grounds.
So would I. But at least they are following Christ, which is far more important. I think the spirit of the law against idols is more important than the letter of it. Does it turn us towards Christ, or away from Him?
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
not by turning down the opportunity to show Muslims the kindness of offering shelter from the rain when they pray.
Is it a kindness to encourage and assist them in their path away from God?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Posted by Ad Orientem
quote:
I have not and do not get involved in telling people if they're Christians or not as I have already pointed out earlier in the thread. As I also pointed out earlier my only concern is orthodoxy. The faith was "delivered once to the saints" and therefore anything new cannot be true but rather a depature from the Apostolic faith.
Do you have a cut off year for when any thing 'new' is considered to be wrong? If not how do you judge what is orthodox?
If so how would you justify that date?
Much of this depends upon ones ecclesiology, I suppose. I believe that the Church is a visible body that has professed the same faith from the time of the Apostles to this very day. Where or who that Church is is something we all have to work out for ourselves. What I would look for is that Golden thread, that constant faith and practice which is a sign of the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I think the spirit of the law against idols is more important than the letter of it. Does it turn us towards Christ, or away from Him?
So Muslims, despite not having any actual idols, fall foul of the spirit of the law against idols... but Christians making graven images are within the spirit of the law and we shouldn't worry too much about the letter?
I find this inconsistent. If you take those verse on idolatry as reason to not pray with a Muslim, I'd suggest that any good reformed protestant would refuse to pray with the Episcopolians who invited the Muslims in and started all this off.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
not by turning down the opportunity to show Muslims the kindness of offering shelter from the rain when they pray.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Is it a kindness to encourage and assist them in their path away from God?
Showing them kindness is far more likely to make them reconsider their view of Christianity than making it harder for them to pray.
By the way there are stories of Muslims at prayer who have seen visions of Christ and repented.
[ 20. March 2013, 13:35: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Woodworm (# 13798) on
:
AO, do you think that God/Allah/Jahweh doesn't listen/respond to prayers from non-Christians?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Woodworm:
AO, do you think that God/Allah/Jahweh doesn't listen/respond to prayers from non-Christians?
I would think that rather depends. God, of course, draws all those who belong to him to himself. Certainly I would not believe unless God had not first moved me to believe. Maybe a better question would be, does God "hear" the prayers of non-Christian worship? The answer to that I would say is, no.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
We all create God in our own image. I'm not sure it's a terribly good reflection when we create a sectarian version.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Well, to be honest I could care less what other people think if what they are thinking is nonsense.
Not what you think is nonsense but what you know to be nonsense, being that you are the supreme arbiter of what is nonsense and what is not.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
my only concern is orthodoxy. The faith was "delivered once to the saints" and therefore anything new cannot be true but rather a depature from the Apostolic faith.
Like i said above, "the worship of one own's narrowly rigid set-in-stone theological interpretations."
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Since leo has raised it specifically, Clarence H Wagner's "The Error of Replacement Theology" is available online here.
I think it is one of the issues causing heat in this discussion, though as Karl says, the heat is illuminating.
But I also think that the some of the heat has been caused by mutual misunderstandings (and in some case intolerances) of the fact that "low candle" Christians tend to have a different view of both the "ekkelsia" and "consecration". So there is a certain amount of talking past one another here.
In my neck of the woods, the "ekklesia" is the assembly or gathering of God's people. Such meetings are "consecrated" because "when two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them". In general people are seen as "consecrated" (dedicated, set apart) for God's service and in that service they may sometimes have to ensure that they live separately from unbelievers, but only in the sense of being "in the world, but not of it".
I think the notion of holy ground is much more an OT thing, but you certainly get a clear guidance from Jesus that the temple (as a house of prayer) should not tolerate exploitative commercial practices anywhere within it (temple cleansing).
But in general, us low candle folks are not much into the idea of "set apart" buildings. Some of that is a historical result of the Reformation, where the special ornateness of places of worship was seen as idolatrous. We have a kind of preference for "plain".
I think Hawk indicated a concern which most nonconformists would share, which is that of being seen to endorse teaching about God which in all good conscience is believed to be false. But that's really got nowt to do with the notion of a consecrated building.
In our set-up, we don't have an altar, and we don't have pews, which means it is actually much easier for the chapel to be rearranged for lots of other uses. The kind of separation between what you can do in a church hall and what you can do in a consecrated building doesn't work in our case. Just one multi-purpose hall.
Although my local congo gets money by letting out the chapel to other local users, that's just seen as good stewardship. Folks pay towards the cost of upkeep of the building, is all.
This probably seems very strange to folks who have lived their lives higher up the candle. We'd argue with them on the basis of scripture that our ways are not just fine, but very much in line with an overriding principle that people are more important than possessions.
I hold my beliefs on this matter on an open hand. I'm also aware, by experience, of "thin places" which seem invariably to be places where there has been much faithful prayer. Haven't got any worked out theology about that, yet. The nonco in me says that if my local chapel has become one of those places (and it sometimes seems to me that it has) that's great. It may be experienced that way by folks outside the church when they visit it for other reasons.
I'm much more excited by that thought, that folks might somehow experience the power and presence of God in the place, than by the possibility that it might somehow be "contaminated" so that it is no longer a "thin place", no longer fit for purpose, desecrated. But then, my cup is nearly always half-full, rather than half-empty. The call on us seems to me to be to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. That's a matter of the human heart, sincerity of engagement. The building may help, but it is in the last resort incidental to that primary call.
[ 20. March 2013, 14:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
That's a helpful post, Barnabas.
As a 'low candle' chick myself, I am very much on board with the concept of consecrated places, actually.
I love our ancient cathedrals, but there was a retreat house in particular I used to visit that I felt was literally soaked in the peace of Christ ... the prayers of the faithful had embued it with calm and tranquillity.
St. Julian's in West Sussex, actually - now called St. Cuthman's, and run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arundel ... in its previous incarnation it was run by an Anglican lay community. (Hmmm ... about time I planned a re-visit, it's been too long.)
Of course, there are many other places.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
We all create God in our own image. I'm not sure it's a terribly good reflection when we create a sectarian version.
This is the problem in a nutshell.
We can't but create God in our own image, as we can't step outside of ourselves.
So the less we include others, the less we reflect the character of Jesus to the world.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
We are saved through faith alone. But it is not easy to understand the nature of saving faith in Christ, I mean, what level of recognition of Christ is required to pass the test. The Gospels have lots of different examples of expressions of faith in Christ.
The obvious and in some respects simple one is Peter's response to the question "Who do you say I am?"
But what about the blind man who, when everyone else in the crowd thought they were there to see "Jesus of Nazareth" recognised that he was in the presence of "Jesus, Son of David", and for this expression of faith, has his sight restored?
Or the Centurion, who doesn't explicitly recognise Jesus as having any particular standing, nor as the Son of God, but simply recognises that he has immense power.
Or Thomas the apostle, who has been following Jesus for some time but reserves his declaration of faith for the wounds of the risen Christ.
Nobody comes to God, to salvation, except through Jesus. But very many people arrive at a destination, by the only possible route, without knowing the name or number of the road they travelled on.
We are saved through faith in Christ alone. And only God knows who truly has that faith. It is possible that many who think they have it do not, and that many who do not know the name of the road they are travelling are, nonetheless, following The Way.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
(please keep going, am finding this very helpful...cheers)
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In our set-up, we don't have an altar, and we don't have pews, which means it is actually much easier for the chapel to be rearranged for lots of other uses. The kind of separation between what you can do in a church hall and what you can do in a consecrated building doesn't work in our case. Just one multi-purpose hall.
Thanks for this post, Barnabas62. I share your viewpoint but you expressed it far more thoughtfully and sensitively!
Picking up the point about multi-purpose buildings, what about churches like mine that hire a venue? (A school hall, in our case.) These church services are clearly not taking place in a consecrated building, so would some people consider them to be, in some sense, not valid, not proper, not approved by God?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In our set-up, we don't have an altar, and we don't have pews, which means it is actually much easier for the chapel to be rearranged for lots of other uses. The kind of separation between what you can do in a church hall and what you can do in a consecrated building doesn't work in our case. Just one multi-purpose hall.
Thanks for this post, Barnabas62. I share your viewpoint but you expressed it far more thoughtfully and sensitively!
Picking up the point about multi-purpose buildings, what about churches like mine that hire a venue? (A school hall, in our case.) These church services are clearly not taking place in a consecrated building, so would some people consider them to be, in some sense, not valid, not proper, not approved by God?
I suppose it depends what you do at church. I would wager that the kind of people who would insist on a consecrated building would also insist on a weekly Eucharist/Mass, and it's because of administering the Sacrament that a consecrated building is important. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but from my experience of very low-candle churches who use school halls etc, I'm guessing you do not have a weekly Eucharist or even monthly! So they might not object, but that might be because they wouldn't consider it to be 'real church'. I am an Anglo-Catholic but do not object to the use of non-consecrated buildings, because as I said upthread I believe it is the gathering of people in Jesus' name that the Spirit consecrates, not a building....but I must confess that I struggle to see a church without regular Eucharistic services to be 'real church'. But I acknowledge that this is just my own weakness/stumbling block.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Presumably, however, if some Christians from a non-"real" church wanted to hold a service in your church when you weren't using it, you wouldn't object on principle? (Although perhaps you would if they wanted to do their version of a communion service?)
By the way, it isn't uncommon for non-conformist churches to do a monthly communion... and I believe that the practice of weekly communion in anglican places is relatively recent, although I suspect that the different views of consecration applying to a building goes back further than that.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I think the spirit of the law against idols is more important than the letter of it. Does it turn us towards Christ, or away from Him?
So Muslims, despite not having any actual idols, fall foul of the spirit of the law against idols... but Christians making graven images are within the spirit of the law and we shouldn't worry too much about the letter?
Muslims may not have any physical or visual representations of men or gods in their worship, but they do revere and treat as sacred a giant black rock, making sure that they pray towards it five times every day. That’s an idol in my book.
And Christians who use representations of God or men in their worship can fall into the trap of treating them as idols, but not necessarily so. I wouldn’t use them myself as I find them unhelpful and a dangerous distraction. But if a Christian finds them helpful to point them towards Christ then IMHO that’s fine.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If you take those verse on idolatry as reason to not pray with a Muslim,
I don’t. I’m discussing the verses on idolatry as a tangential illustration. I decide not to pray with Muslims not because they worship their own creation, but because they do not worship Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
not by turning down the opportunity to show Muslims the kindness of offering shelter from the rain when they pray.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Is it a kindness to encourage and assist them in their path away from God?
Showing them kindness is far more likely to make them reconsider their view of Christianity than making it harder for them to pray.
Perhaps. I would suggest it is more likely that it will encourage them in the practice of their own religion.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
By the way there are stories of Muslims at prayer who have seen visions of Christ and repented.
And that’s God’s prerogative. He may be able to speak outside the gospel as He wishes. But He has asked His followers to preach the gospel of Christ. We should not preach or encourage anything else in the hope that God will speak through it anyway.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Actually, we have communion twice a month. Not my personal preference; I prefer a weekly rhythm.
I think most Anglo-Catholics would find the process too "memorial", not enough "feeding" and too informal. There is no written liturgy. But again, these are very common features of nonco church life.
Rather like all acts of worship, however, I think the emphasis is on sincerity of engagement, rather than formal structure. Where your heart is, there your treasure will be. I don't tend to speculate on where other folks' hearts are in worship. A matter between them and God - as it is for me.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Leo,
The land is and always was only a figure. That the Jews lived there for a while under the Old Covenant was always dependant upon them being faithful.
Funny how some people take the Bible figuratively when it suits them and literally, when it suits them, at other times.
This god you portray isn't very nice. he breaks his promises and he doesn't seem to like people very much. in fact, he seems to have everybody except one denomination of Christians who alone, it seems, were worthy for him to reveal the truth to.
Fortunately, this god is an idol which falls far short of God.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I believe that the practice of weekly communion in anglican places is relatively recent,
1662 and the canons require a weekly celebration in every parish church as a minimum. So not that recent.
[ 20. March 2013, 17:21: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Perhaps. I would suggest it is more likely that it will encourage them in the practice of their own religion.
How important is that judgement to your position? For instance, if you became convinced that on average muslims were more likely to convert to Christianity as a result of encountering Christians who gave them shelter to pray rather than if they encouter Christians who clearly demonstrate they cannot allow them to pray in a church.... would that be enough to make you think you should change your stance?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I believe that the practice of weekly communion in anglican places is relatively recent,
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
1662 and the canons require a weekly celebration in every parish church as a minimum. So not that recent.
Really? So what was the parish communion movement about then? Have I added 2 and 2 and got 5 somehow?
[ 20. March 2013, 17:29: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'll dig it up for you shortly when I get home.
Yes - you were write and I was mistaken - it does have stuff in Ephesians 2 that is relevant.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No, but the tradition, certainly in many churches for much of the early-mid C20 and perhaps late C19, was 8am Holy Communion, 11 am Mattins, 6.30 Evensong (or perhaps sometimes evening HC in lower churches), with Mattins being the 'main' morning service. That was what the Parish Communion movement wanted to change.
Don't know how widespread weekly communion was in ordinary parish churches in say the C18, but there are Shipmates who probably would know about it.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Muslims may not have any physical or visual representations of men or gods in their worship, but they do revere and treat as sacred a giant black rock, making sure that they pray towards it five times every day. That’s an idol in my book.
No. The Kaaba is not an idol to any orthodox Muslim, Sunni or Shia. It is a sacred place, worthy of great veneration, because the Qur'an states that it was the first house that was built for humanity to worship God. The worship is directed to the One True God alone.
The grotto at Lourdes is considered a holy place because of the belief that Mary appeared there and miraculous healings have taken place there. Does that make the grotto an idol?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Presumably, however, if some Christians from a non-"real" church wanted to hold a service in your church when you weren't using it, you wouldn't object on principle? (Although perhaps you would if they wanted to do their version of a communion service?)
By the way, it isn't uncommon for non-conformist churches to do a monthly communion... and I believe that the practice of weekly communion in anglican places is relatively recent, although I suspect that the different views of consecration applying to a building goes back further than that.
I wouldn't object, not even if they wanted to do their own version of a Communion service. I would only see our own consecrated elements as out of bounds, they would have to use their own.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Perhaps. I would suggest it is more likely that it will encourage them in the practice of their own religion.
How important is that judgement to your position? For instance, if you became convinced that on average muslims were more likely to convert to Christianity as a result of encountering Christians who gave them shelter to pray rather than if they encouter Christians who clearly demonstrate they cannot allow them to pray in a church.... would that be enough to make you think you should change your stance?
I am confused as to how, following Hawk's argument, having some Muslims decide "blow this for a lark, I'm not praying in the rain" and staying home is a good thing for anyone.
They're not coming closer to God by being "bad" Muslims - they're moving from faithfully following the rules of Islam towards laissez-faire secularism. I don't see how that brings them closer to Christ.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would wager that the kind of people who would insist on a consecrated building would also insist on a weekly Eucharist/Mass, and it's because of administering the Sacrament that a consecrated building is important.
I don't think a consecrated building is necessary - once or twice every summer our church holds our main Sunday Eucharist in a local park, and that's not any less valid. (I don't enjoy it much, partly because I don't do well in the heat and partly because it brings out the kind of clappy guitar music that doesn't do much for me. These are problems with me, though, not problems with an outdoor Mass.)
I do think that a consecrated space set aside for the worship of God is a very good thing, and it's absolutely necessary if you want to reserve the sacrament.
If acquiring and consecrating such a space is beyond the current means of your church, then you have to do the best job you can with what you have available. God will not fault you for it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I suppose Hawk would argue that they are more likely to think "they think we're all the same really, no need for me to critically consider Christianity as an option" if they are allowed to pray in the church. Whereas the clear statement that their religion is unacceptable (by keeping them out in the rain) might make them think that Christians really stand for something.
Personally I think this is unlikely, but I can see how the argument might be made.
What I'm interested in is how critical that judgement is to the whole view. If one could show (one can't, but just for discussion purposes suppose one could) that muslims would be more likely to convert to Christianity if they have an encounter that makes them think "what nice people - maybe they aren't so bad - I wonder what they believe?" then I wonder if Hawk would still want them out in the rain.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Hawk.
What path away from God? As opposed to yours?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
It may be worth mentioning that Orthodox often have services in Anglican Churches in the UK, through the Churches Together shared buildings agreement. This means that we have Divine Liturgy in buildings which are consecrated for christian devotion - but not exclusively for us. Still, I think an Orthodox bishop is required to bless the place before we can begin.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Perhaps. I would suggest it is more likely that it will encourage them in the practice of their own religion.
How important is that judgement to your position? For instance, if you became convinced that on average muslims were more likely to convert to Christianity as a result of encountering Christians who gave them shelter to pray rather than if they encouter Christians who clearly demonstrate they cannot allow them to pray in a church.... would that be enough to make you think you should change your stance?
I'd guess so. Bringing people to Christ is the important thing.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
once or twice every summer our church holds our main Sunday Eucharist in a local park, and that's not any less valid. (I don't enjoy it much, partly because I don't do well in the heat and partly because it brings out the kind of clappy guitar music that doesn't do much for me. These are problems with me, though, not problems with an outdoor Mass.)
Hey, you're describing our twice-a-summer "Mass on the Grass"
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(btw the only time the word "mass" is used officially to describe one of our eucharists. Also that eccles favorite "Shine Jesus Shine" invariably makes an appearance.)
[ 20. March 2013, 20:43: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Hawk.
What path away from God? As opposed to yours?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Some grammar might help.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Sylvander
Thanks for your post above. It was quite instructive.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Hey, you're describing our twice-a-summer "Mass on the Grass"
I don't think, even for RCs, that you are only allowed to have masses in consecrated buildings.
quote:
(btw the only time the word "mass" is used officially to describe one of our eucharists...
What about Christmas and Candlemass?
quote:
...Also that eccles favorite "Shine Jesus Shine" invariably makes an appearance.)
I SOOOOOOOOOO wish I could be there! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In our set-up, we don't have an altar, and we don't have pews, which means it is actually much easier for the chapel to be rearranged for lots of other uses. The kind of separation between what you can do in a church hall and what you can do in a consecrated building doesn't work in our case. Just one multi-purpose hall.
Thanks for this post, Barnabas62. I share your viewpoint but you expressed it far more thoughtfully and sensitively!
Picking up the point about multi-purpose buildings, what about churches like mine that hire a venue? (A school hall, in our case.) These church services are clearly not taking place in a consecrated building, so would some people consider them to be, in some sense, not valid, not proper, not approved by God?
Quite interesting. For simplicity, I left out a part of the story of my local congo. We still use our chapel regularly for worship and prayer (Sunday evenings, midweek events), but not on Sunday mornings. The reason was that our Sunday morning worship was so well attended that we were pushing up against H & S limits (even after offering two consecutive services).
So we got involved with a local school in a collaborative project. They dearly wanted a larger and better equipped school hall than the local authority budget would provide for. We needed a larger worship area, but could not afford the cost of buying a larger chapel. So we fundraised to contribute to the larger school hall (which the school and local authority own) and as a quid pro quo got long term use of the hall at a peppercorn rent, plus our own storage cupboards for equipment, plus use of classrooms for children and Sunday school. Plus a baptistry in the stage (we practise believers' baptism by full immersion). So we have a permanent home and a Sunday morning home.
This win-win project was completed successfully in about 18 months. The school and parents (and local authority) were delighted with the enhanced facilities, the process generated immense local goodwill, and provided us with a worship area large enough to accommodate over 500 people. The setting is plain, but we use banners and wall hangings which proclaim the Christian faith in words and pictures. So the setting isn't stark.
As I've said, our ecclesiology does not include the notion of a specially consecrated place for worship, but like many other congregations we pray at the start of our meetings that the presence of God will become a present reality for all who gather there. I think that if you believe in the omnipresence of God, the most important feature is that God will open the eyes of our hearts so that His presence amongst us will be better known. We go to meet with Him and be changed by Him. We believe that worship is an encounter with the Divine presence. It's hard for me to appreciate that congregational worship (proskuneo = to come towards reverently to kiss) is anything else but that. Prayers with that in mind are a lot better than praying for God to "turn up", which I've heard folks in other places do. He's already there. The real issue is whether we have the heart to "tune in" - and even when we do not, recognising that His gift of grace can help us to do so.
Personally I have no problems in accepting the validity of beliefs and practises associated with traditions of consecrated buildings. The fact that we don't see it that way doesn't make me dismissive of other views. Why should it? It doesn't seem to me to the sort of thing which should divide people of goodwill.
[ 20. March 2013, 21:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Perhaps. I would suggest it is more likely that it will encourage them in the practice of their own religion.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
How important is that judgement to your position? For instance, if you became convinced that on average muslims were more likely to convert to Christianity as a result of encountering Christians who gave them shelter to pray rather than if they encouter Christians who clearly demonstrate they cannot allow them to pray in a church.... would that be enough to make you think you should change your stance?
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I'd guess so. Bringing people to Christ is the important thing.
Can I ask - if your stance rests on that judgement, then given how difficult it is to predict how humans will react (and even more difficult to predict in what way God may use their reactions) that it might do to be a little more agnostic (if you excuse the choice of word) regarding the correct course of action here?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Thanks for giving some more details of your church's story, Barnabas62.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This win-win project was completed successfully in about 18 months. The school and parents (and local authority) were delighted with the enhanced facilities, the process generated immense local goodwill, and provided us with a worship area large enough to accommodate over 500 people.
Nice job! And all in 18 months - not bad at all, I'd say.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...we pray at the start of our meetings that the presence of God will become a present reality for all who gather there... that His presence amongst us will be better known... Prayers with that in mind are a lot better than praying for God to "turn up", which I've heard folks in other places do. He's already there. The real issue is whether we have the heart to "tune in" - and even when we do not, recognising that His gift of grace can help us to do so.
Yeah, I totally agree. Avoiding language like 'Please show up, God' and 'Coming in to God's presence' is one of my hobby-horses. I know what people are getting at but wherever we are, God is already there!
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Personally I have no problems in accepting the validity of beliefs and practises associated with traditions of consecrated buildings. The fact that we don't see it that way doesn't make me dismissive of other views. Why should it? It doesn't seem to me to the sort of thing which should divide people of goodwill.
Again, I agree. While I think many churches (especially small rural C of E churches) are hamstrung by the burden of maintaining and heating big, often old buildings, it's not remotely something I'd want to fall out with people over. This thread just got me wondering whether some Christians would doubt the validity and authenticity of how churches like mine operate, simply in view of where the Sunday meetings are held.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Can I ask - if your stance rests on that judgement, then given how difficult it is to predict how humans will react (and even more difficult to predict in what way God may use their reactions) that it might do to be a little more agnostic (if you excuse the choice of word) regarding the correct course of action here?
No.
Your argument is flawed because it could just as easily be used to argue against offering them the church space as it could be used in support of it. You don't know that offering them the church space will exhibit to them the love of Christ, or whether it will show them that you support their rejection of Christ. If you chose an agnostic position and claim that you do not know whether good or evil will result from your actions, then surely the best thing to do is nothing. And then you are at least not personally culpable.
At the end of the day I do not believe in encouraging and providing assistance to actions which I believe to be wrong, just to be seen to be kind, in the vague hope that this is enough to bring them to Christ.
As an illustration of my position in this I will use, as an analogy, an example of people engaging in an activity that we can agree is physically dangerous (as opposed to spiritually). Imagine you came across a group of children playing with fireworks in a park, lighting them and throwing them at each other. Some of them run out of matches and can't continue joining in with their friends. Would you kindly offer them your matches so they could continue their fun. In the hope that your kindness would show them the love of Christ?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
That's fine, so far as it goes, Hawk. But it points to the more intriguing question.
How do you know that they are playing with fireworks and you aren't?
To take the analogy a step further. In my close on 40 years as a Christian I have seen congos who espouse what appear to be sound (evangelically sound that is) beliefs and yet cause great damage to members and ministers. The righteousness seemed to me to co-exist with a lack of kindness. I've seen party spirit and factions within.
Oh sure, you and I can quote the scriptures which say that ought not to happen, that should not happen. Sometimes I have shuddered at the effect of the "hardening of the oughteries". Like hardening of the arteries, it has seemed to me that it can cause a heart attack. On the very heart of the good news.
The desire for doctrinal soundness is well intentioned, but it can easily degenerate into something which is quite un-Christ-like in its approach to the marginalised and different.
I think open-handed offers of friendship have a future, even with folks who we think are playing with fireworks.
Do you recall Brother Andrew? God's smuggler. Mike Pilavaci (the Soul Survivor leader) told me a few years ago about a meeting he had with Brother Andrew (who was in his 70's at the time). The old boy was full of beans, according to Mike, because he felt God had given him a new mission in life. Befriending terrorists. Apparently he'd made friends with Yasser Arafat. Mike said he remonstrated with Brother Andrew, wondered whether Arafat was to be trusted. The old boy laughed. "Of course he's not to be trusted! But God is. Anyway, I think he quite likes me, is intrigued by my odd beliefs. I'm seeing him next week, why don't you come and join me? I'm sure he'll be interested in your story, what you do". Mike observed that he was pleased to discover he had a genuine prior engagement, so declined. But he was really challenged by the old boy, was thinking he should really follow it up, but felt more than a little chicken about it.
He's since told the story publicly, so I feel OK about repeating it, as best I recall it. It sure challenged me. The Psalmist says "With your help I can advance against a troop; with my God I can scale a wall." There are walls that divide us. Sometimes a risky bit of wall leaping may be in order. Things can go wrong of course. But not if God is in it.
Sometimes it really isn't so clear who is throwing the fireworks. Or the brickbats.
[ 21. March 2013, 06:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Hey, you're describing our twice-a-summer "Mass on the Grass"
I don't think, even for RCs, that you are only allowed to have masses in consecrated buildings.
Certainly not the case, when the RCs had WYD in Sydney they had a huge mass celebrated at Randwick Racecourse - a den of thieves ripping off the poor if ever there was one.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
At the end of the day I do not believe in encouraging and providing assistance to actions which I believe to be wrong, just to be seen to be kind, in the vague hope that this is enough to bring them to Christ.
OK I think I get you. It isn't so much your prediction of whether your actions lead them to Christ or encourage or discourage that is important... it is a point of principle that you think what they are doing is very wrong and you therefore don't want to be involved at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Would you kindly offer them your matches so they could continue their fun. In the hope that your kindness would show them the love of Christ?
Got it. And this is where a difference between us lies. Firstly I wouldn't liken Islam to playing with fireworks and Christianity to a walk in the park. Clearly Islam can lead to terrorism, extremism and brutal repression. But Christianity can lead to some bad stuff too.
One could speculate about whether Islam was closer or further from Christianity than atheism.
But if one considers it damaging, and considers the practioners of it to be adults rather than children, and set on continuing to practice, then I suppose a better analogy for me would be observing a group of adult smokers in the rain.
I think smoking is a bad idea, and I wouldn't want to provide them with cigarettes or a match if they asked. But I might provide them with shelter while they smoke and wait for a bus. If a conversation strikes up about smoking I would be honest and do my best to persuade them of my view.
But I'd regard stopping them smoking for a few minutes as a rather empty victory, and denying them shelter as pointless.
By the way, I'm personally not agnostic about the impact of acts of kindness. I feel quite certain that the most likely outcome of denying Muslims shelter is to convince them that we don't like them very much and feed into a view of Christians as modern-day crusaders. Offering them shelter is more likely to breakdown stereotypes of how Christians act.
But I suspect this isn't the source of the difference between us - it is more the former difference of children with fireworks vs adults smoking.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
How do you know that they are playing with fireworks and you aren't?
To take the analogy a step further. In my close on 40 years as a Christian I have seen congos who espouse what appear to be sound (evangelically sound that is) beliefs and yet cause great damage to members and ministers.
I agree. We should all make sure that we look first at the dynamite in our own hand before worrying about the fireworks in others'.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
At the end of the day I do not believe in encouraging and providing assistance to actions which I believe to be wrong, just to be seen to be kind, in the vague hope that this is enough to bring them to Christ.
OK I think I get you. It isn't so much your prediction of whether your actions lead them to Christ or encourage or discourage that is important... it is a point of principle that you think what they are doing is very wrong and you therefore don't want to be involved at all.
A bit of both. But yes, mainly the second. I see this as a scripturally based approach.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Would you kindly offer them your matches so they could continue their fun. In the hope that your kindness would show them the love of Christ?
Got it. And this is where a difference between us lies. Firstly I wouldn't liken Islam to playing with fireworks and Christianity to a walk in the park. Clearly Islam can lead to terrorism, extremism and brutal repression. But Christianity can lead to some bad stuff too.
Oh definitely. Please don't take the analogy too far. Christinaity has it's own problems and is certainly not a walk in the park. More like a marathon through an obstacle course. But on a spiritual level, I do see Islam as dangerous, as it takes people away from God.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But if one considers it damaging, and considers the practioners of it to be adults rather than children, and set on continuing to practice, then I suppose a better analogy for me would be observing a group of adult smokers in the rain.
I think smoking is a bad idea, and I wouldn't want to provide them with cigarettes or a match if they asked. But I might provide them with shelter while they smoke and wait for a bus. If a conversation strikes up about smoking I would be honest and do my best to persuade them of my view.
But I'd regard stopping them smoking for a few minutes as a rather empty victory, and denying them shelter as pointless.
Point taken. I like your analogy. Perhaps different cases may be more like yours, and others more like mine.
I think we understand each other now. Thank you for your considered input. It's been very interesting and helpful - remarkable on such a heated thread!
[ 21. March 2013, 10:52: Message edited by: Hawk ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I think we understand each other now. Thank you for your considered input. It's been very interesting and helpful - remarkable on such a heated thread!
Indeed. And likewise.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
A few assorted comments.
1. Jews are not apostate Christians. I hesitate to go as far as to accuse anyone of trolling but that statement is both offensive and deeply misguided. An apostate is a person who has given up their faith. Jews are descended from those who never became Christians in the first place.
2. Chrisitanity grows out of Judaism. Jesus was Jewish. We have received the Old Testament and a lot more of C1 Judaism than some Christians would like to recognise. We should be grateful for this.
3. The first Christians were Jewish and worshipped in the temple, sacrifices and all, until they were thrown out.
4. Islam is more of a problem. Allah is the same God as ours, but we would regard Islam's vision of him as inadequate/misled. Because of the tensions and the risk aired above of its being subsequently used to claim a land-grab, I think I'd be uneasy about letting Moslems worship in a church. However, I do not think it would pollute a church if they did.
5. The position becomes very different once one gets to the other religions of the world, with the slight possible exception of Buddhism which I know very little about. If you ask yourself, 'what would Moses, Elijah or St Paul have thought?', the answer becomes immediately obvious. Any sort of sharing agreement with any of them would be dangerous and polluting, be it the worship of Diana of the Ephesians, Ganesh, Ashtoresh, Thor, Lug, the white goddess, Tongasoak or whoever. The installation of an idol of any of them would be even worse.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Please do hesitate before making that accusation in Purgatory anyway. Such accusations or other personal comments should be in Hell if they are anywhere.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Muslims may not have any physical or visual representations of men or gods in their worship, but they do revere and treat as sacred a giant black rock, making sure that they pray towards it five times every day. That’s an idol in my book.
No. The Kaaba is not an idol to any orthodox Muslim, Sunni or Shia. It is a sacred place, worthy of great veneration, because the Qur'an states that it was the first house that was built for humanity to worship God. The worship is directed to the One True God alone.
And it is worth pointing out that the ka'aba is empty - Muhammad (pbuh) cleared out all the idols.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
There's sufficient there I'd OF thought Hawk.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I'm beginning to wonder how many people who call themselves Christians Ad Orientem would refuse to pray with on the grounds that they aren't "real" Christians....
I have not and do not get into arguments about who is or who is not a "real" Christians. As far as I'm concerned anyone who has been baptised with water in the name of the Father and of the Son aned of the Holy Spirit has the right to refer to themselves as a Christian. That, of course, says nothing of orthodoxy though, and it is orthodoxy I'm concerned with and endeavour to present.
Well, that puts Quakers safely on the outside. Of course, it's very hard to tell when we're praying, 'cause we look like we're just sitting there. We could sneak into a church and contaminate it with stealth prayers....
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
I do have some sympathies with those who are coming from a exclusivist point of view; is that OK as shorthand for Ad Orientem's and Hawk's approaches? It is a logical conclusion from taking a stance about the uniqueness of the claims of Christianity; if you believe people who are worshipping God without accepting Jesus are in peril of eternal hell, then you are doing them a disservice by encouraging them to perpetuate their mistake.
I think that many who take issue with the conclusion do so because they take issue with the starting point. I don't share that starting point, but I don't think it is uncommon; in those circumstances not extending access to your worship space because you believe people are practising a false religion is not inhospitable, but honest.
In interfaith dialogue we have to be honest about our differences, rather than seek to mash them into one shared soggy goo of nothingness. As long as you are honest (but polite) in expressing what and why, fair enough.
Having given that apologia for the stance of others, I repeat that I don't share it. I don't have concerns about sharing my own worship space (consecrated or not), but I would have concerns about using some other worship spaces for formal worship, and about the sensitivities of those to whom my faith might extend hospitality.
It's more about the decoration than the dedication/consecration of the space. I can recognise the holiness of a space and would have no concerns about praying quietly in any house of prayer. But to bring the symbols of my faith into the worship space of another faith, and to conduct our rituals there, would sometimes seem disrespectful. And how do those of other faiths cope using Christian worship spaces with those symbols prominently displayed?
The cross and the Eucharist are classic examples. If we invite Jews to use our church, we might be able to lift down the altar cross. But there's a crucifix above the pulpit, and another 'dying-Jew-on-a-stick' in the East window, that one with INRI indelibly displayed. Over in the corner there's the special leftovers from our 'new-and-better' version of the Passover meal.
Or maybe we have their Ten Commandments on the wall, paired with the Lord's Prayer, or a depiction of the Last Supper.
You'd have to be quite thick skinned to be able to shut all the Christian symbols out. Maybe it doesn't matter, if you're so grateful to be out of the rain.
By the same token, I'd feel uncomfortable placing a cross in another faith's worship space, or taking icons or statues into a mosque, or conducting formal Christian worship in sight of statues of another faith's god(s).
For me, any sharing agreement would have to be based on mutual respect. I would be happier offering our church hall than our church, because it is quite clearly a Christian space and you'd be implying that people have to put up with that and block it from their mind.
But I wouldn't feel the same way about some other worship spaces. I remember a church in my home town where the sanctuary was screened off when the space wasn't being used for worship, and similar multi-use church/school hall in my university town.
I stress that if it doesn't matter to the 'tenants', then it doesn't matter to me. But it feels to me that it should matter. Unless you are actively syncretic in your belief system, then we believe different and often contradictory things, and trying to express one set of beliefs while surrounded by objects intended to reinforce another set of beliefs would be difficult for me.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
the risk aired above of its being subsequently used to claim a land-grab
Which seems a weird thing to worry about. Radical Muslims may believe that the church in Aberdeen is now 'theirs' but Scottish law is hardly going to let them exercise this 'right'. Sylvander cites Cologne cathedral which, I note, is still Catholic nearly 50 years after the event.
If radical Islam ever became so powerful in Scotland that radical Muslims were able to occupy the church, then Christians are pretty screwed anyway regardless of the situation in this particular church. And if radical Muslims decide they can act extra-judicially then, again, they're a threat regardless of this church.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
quote:
For me, any sharing agreement would have to be based on mutual respect. I would be happier offering our church hall than our church, because it is quite clearly a Christian space and you'd be implying that people have to put up with that and block it from their mind.
My understanding, which could be wrong, is that this is what has happened; the Muslims primarily use the church hall, but use the church itself for "overspill" once the hall is full. The church itself is full of pews, which presumably create a practical difficulty in terms of prostrate prayer.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
This might also be of interest to those following this thread.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
The cross and the Eucharist are classic examples. If we invite Jews to use our church, we might be able to lift down the altar cross. But there's a crucifix above the pulpit, and another 'dying-Jew-on-a-stick' in the East window, that one with INRI indelibly displayed. Over in the corner there's the special leftovers from our 'new-and-better' version of the Passover meal.
It is always embarrassing, especially for the British, to declare that 'my way is better than your way'. It goes against all our deeply inbuilt notions of self-effacement. But it is important, I feel, to get past these feelings of embarrasment and preach 'the Way the Truth and the Life'. We should never be embarrassed about who we are and what we beleive. And we should certainly not be embarrased about displaying the symbols of our Lord proudly and clearly before all others, whatever their religion or creed.
Luke 9:26: "Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory"
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Personally, I'm painfully aware that there are hundreds of religious beliefs in the world and the fact that I ended up with Christianity when I "got religion" is almost entirely down to the fact that Christianity was the dominant religious belief in the society in which I grew up. Had I been born in Tunisia it's odds on I'd be a muslim.
I therefore find believing with any certainty that I've managed to pick the "right one", which it's so contingent, quite problematic.
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
Yes to Hawk. And were I to even mentally consider taking down a cross in order to avoid 'offending' Jews (its a church, what do they expect), I think I would have Peter's sermons to the Jews in Acts 3-4 screaming in my head. Peter loved the Jews, his own people, and part of that love was to explain the truth to them. Doesn't mean I would do all his 'you killed the author of life' stuff (he could get away with it, being one of the family himself)! But wouldnt want to hide what we in the church believe.
[ 22. March 2013, 11:13: Message edited by: ButchCassidy ]
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Personally, I'm painfully aware that there are hundreds of religious beliefs in the world and the fact that I ended up with Christianity when I "got religion" is almost entirely down to the fact that Christianity was the dominant religious belief in the society in which I grew up. Had I been born in Tunisia it's odds on I'd be a muslim.
I'd probably be the same. I would hope that the Holy Spirit would have still revealed Jesus to me, but would I have had the courage to go against my culture and follow Jesus in response? I have little courage at the best of times. So I thank God for his grace, that I have been blessed by being born in a country where Christianity is dominent. In the same way as I am grateful that I was born in a time and place where democracy, freedom, rule of law, a national health service, a welfare system, and a good standard of income are the norm. Most people in the world do not have these blessings. And I certainly will not spurn these benefits by considering them of little worth. Being brought up in a Christian household is a pearl of great worth.
[ 22. March 2013, 12:23: Message edited by: Hawk ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I wasn't.
That's not my point though; my point is that we really, really don't know that we've got the "right one". It's perfectly possibly that the Muslims are right. Or the Jews. Or the Hindus. Or the Sikhs. Or none of 'em. Or all of 'em, a bit.
Definitive statements to the contrary just seem hubristic to me.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Definitive statements to the contrary just seem hubristic to me.
Seems like a statement of faith to me
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
If your definition of faith is "things I want to be true so am going to believe in even though I've got no solid reason for believing they are."
At least that's what it would mean if I said it.
Perhaps I don't do this "faith" thing very well.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I would hope that the Holy Spirit would have still revealed Jesus to me, but would I have had the courage to go against my culture and follow Jesus in response? I have little courage at the best of times.
I'm disturbed, though finding it hard to explain why, by this. I think it might suggest that you believe that of the millions of muslims in the world, there are some (many?) to whom the HOly Spirit has revealed Jesus, but they do not "have the courage" to follow him.
I would refer to, rather than repeat, my post above in which I note that the Gospels show that there are many ways for the Holy Spirit to reveal Jesus to us. Of the ways told in the Gospels, not all result in explicit recognition of Jesus as Son of God, yet we are left in no doubt as to their saving grace.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
quote:
For me, any sharing agreement would have to be based on mutual respect. I would be happier offering our church hall than our church, because it is quite clearly a Christian space and you'd be implying that people have to put up with that and block it from their mind.
My understanding, which could be wrong, is that this is what has happened; the Muslims primarily use the church hall, but use the church itself for "overspill" once the hall is full. The church itself is full of pews, which presumably create a practical difficulty in terms of prostrate prayer.
That's how I read the original press release, in which case most of the debate on this thread is irrelevant.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
I would rather say "something I believe to be true, even though I cannot be sure, so I will act as though I am sure, rather than according to my uncertainty."
Faith is a choice, not forced on us by overwhelming evidence, but encouraged by the slow revelation of the Spirit. We can never know anything for sure, but we cannot move forward if we are constantly undecided as to the direction. We cannot win any victories for Christ if we have a foot in both camps, forever hesitating. At some point in our life we must decide once and for all what we believe. We must nail our colours to the mast.
Because faith is vital. Without faith, we have no sure hope of resurrection, no clear idea of God's will, no relationship with Jesus. Without it Christianity is just another religion, trying to find God by stumbling in the dark, no better or worse than any other way. With faith, we can move mountains.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'm not built that way. If I'm uncertain, I'm uncertain. No amount of determination to pretend otherwise changes that.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
there are some (many?) to whom the HOly Spirit has revealed Jesus, but they do not "have the courage" to follow him.
Probably. It takes great courage to convert. I doubt that everyone who hears the name of Jesus responds with faith in Him. I think its likely that the minority do, many being like the rich man who was told by Jesus to give away all his money and follow him, but went away sad, because he couldn't do it. It is a painful sacrifice for many to follow Jesus, we should never claim it is easy.
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Of the ways told in the Gospels, not all result in explicit recognition of Jesus as Son of God, yet we are left in no doubt as to their saving grace.
I don't think there are any times in the gospels when someone is declared as saved even though they explicitly reject Jesus as the Son of God. There are times when we are not given the end of the story, when people are healed and Jesus moves on, and we don't know whether they came to believe in Him or not. What are you referring to.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not built that way. If I'm uncertain, I'm uncertain. No amount of determination to pretend otherwise changes that.
It's not pretence. That's why it's called 'faith' instead of 'proof'. That's why the Jews were called 'Israel' (struggles with God). Doubt and uncertainty are a major part of faith, otherwise it wouldn't be faith.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
there are some (many?) to whom the HOly Spirit has revealed Jesus, but they do not "have the courage" to follow him.
Probably. It takes great courage to convert. I doubt that everyone who hears the name of Jesus responds with faith in Him. I think its likely that the minority do, many being like the rich man who was told by Jesus to give away all his money and follow him, but went away sad, because he couldn't do it. It is a painful sacrifice for many to follow Jesus, we should never claim it is easy.
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Of the ways told in the Gospels, not all result in explicit recognition of Jesus as Son of God, yet we are left in no doubt as to their saving grace.
I don't think there are any times in the gospels when someone is declared as saved even though they explicitly reject Jesus as the Son of God. There are times when we are not given the end of the story, when people are healed and Jesus moves on, and we don't know whether they came to believe in Him or not. What are you referring to.
This
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
This
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying now. Salvation is not based on intellectual assent to a precise theological position. Just that we put our recognition and trust in Jesus that He has the divine power and authority necessary to save us. All the people in your examples exhibited such faith. Is that a good summary?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not built that way. If I'm uncertain, I'm uncertain. No amount of determination to pretend otherwise changes that.
It's not pretence. That's why it's called 'faith' instead of 'proof'. That's why the Jews were called 'Israel' (struggles with God). Doubt and uncertainty are a major part of faith, otherwise it wouldn't be faith.
if I told someone of another faith that I thought that I was right and they were wrong, giving any indication that I had any significant confidence in that statement, I'd be pretending. YMMV, naturally.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I could say with perfect integrity "I have committed myself to this tradition, in which I have found strength and meaning to cope with life."
The wisest words I ever heard in a sermon were "faith is not the opposite of doubt".
The opposite of faith is certainty. Faith isn't a theory to believe, it is a way of life to follow, and if there isn't doubt, there's no moving forward or following.
Faith is moving forward into the darkness?
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not built that way. If I'm uncertain, I'm uncertain. No amount of determination to pretend otherwise changes that.
It's not pretence. That's why it's called 'faith' instead of 'proof'. That's why the Jews were called 'Israel' (struggles with God). Doubt and uncertainty are a major part of faith, otherwise it wouldn't be faith.
if I told someone of another faith that I thought that I was right and they were wrong, giving any indication that I had any significant confidence in that statement, I'd be pretending. YMMV, naturally.
The operative words are 'significant confidence'. This does not equal 'certainty'.
I have significant confidence in Jesus Christ.
I appreciate YMMV
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
This
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying now. Salvation is not based on intellectual assent to a precise theological position. Just that we put our recognition and trust in Jesus that He has the divine power and authority necessary to save us. All the people in your examples exhibited such faith. Is that a good summary?
Yes.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Salvation is not based on intellectual assent to a precise theological position. Just that we put our recognition and trust in Jesus that He has the divine power and authority necessary to save us. All the people in your examples exhibited such faith. Is that a good summary?
Yes.
Amen!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Strictly speaking, Erroneous Monk and Malik, Protestant doctrine has it that we are 'saved by grace through faith'. It's the grace that saves. Faith is not a work.
But I'll let wiser minds than mine tussle with that one.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Strictly speaking, Erroneous Monk and Malik, Protestant doctrine has it that we are 'saved by grace through faith'. It's the grace that saves. Faith is not a work.
But I'll let wiser minds than mine tussle with that one.
Gamaliel, I 100% agree with that also -- I wasn't interpreting the statement that I "Amen"ed above to mean that our trusting in Jesus is a work we do that saves us. I believe it truly is all Jesus' work.
If i am not mistaken (and i am open to correction if i am mistaken) i seem to remember a joint 1960s or 1970s Lutheran-Roman Catholic declaration that agreed with the above.
Actually i would add that, it all being Jesus' work, Jesus can save whomever he wants, including people who, in this life, are non-Christians. Jesus does the saving, not us. But i guess that viewpoint is part of what has helped generate some of the fireworks in this thread.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Strictly speaking, Erroneous Monk and Malik, Protestant doctrine has it that we are 'saved by grace through faith'. It's the grace that saves. Faith is not a work.
But I'll let wiser minds than mine tussle with that one.
I see it as a little analogous to Indiana Jones at the end of the Last Crusade. He is hanging off the edge of the precipice struggling to grab hold of the Grail by himself when his father says "Indy, let it go". So Indy stops trying to grab the grail and lets his father lift him to safety.
Admittedly it takes no 'work' to allow our father to lift us to safety, but it does take a conscious decision and even an effort, to turn away from trying to grasp the things we are so desperate for, and submit to God's will.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Perhaps. I would suggest it is more likely that it will encourage them in the practice of their own religion.
How important is that judgement to your position? For instance, if you became convinced that on average muslims were more likely to convert to Christianity as a result of encountering Christians who gave them shelter to pray rather than if they encouter Christians who clearly demonstrate they cannot allow them to pray in a church.... would that be enough to make you think you should change your stance?
I am confused as to how, following Hawk's argument, having some Muslims decide "blow this for a lark, I'm not praying in the rain" and staying home is a good thing for anyone.
They're not coming closer to God by being "bad" Muslims - they're moving from faithfully following the rules of Islam towards laissez-faire secularism. I don't see how that brings them closer to Christ.
And you think being in a religion that explicitly teaches Jesus is not the Christ will bring them closer to Christ? And you think ritual practices of any religion would bring them closer to Christ????
The problem is not about the use of the space itself. It´s about a christian church helping to promote a religion that explicitly denies Christ.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
And you think being in a religion that explicitly teaches Jesus is not the Christ will bring them closer to Christ? And you think ritual practices of any religion would bring them closer to Christ????
No, but the experience of Christian kindness might.
[ 23. March 2013, 09:48: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
What I imagine is that these two neighbouring groups of worshippers had a fairly good and respectful relationship already, and it didn't seem like too much of a stretch for them to help each other out.
Maybe it also helped that the priest is Asian, and perhaps has positive personal connections with Islam. I know some Asian British clergy who are very into interfaith work and the liberation paradigm, and they'd surely applaud this gesture. It arises out of a particular theology, and that can be respected. (We should remember, though, that other Asian Christians have more negative experiences of Islam.)
What I find harder to except is the implication that Christianity has to be gutted in order to be 'kind'. It doesn't seem theological, and it doesn't seem to be honest about Christianity or about other religions. There's a point at which the cuddly approach to other religions actually seems quite disrespectful. It certainly doesn't elicit much respect in return; in the UK Muslims occasionally reproach Christians for being wishy-washy, and I can see why they would, to be honest. Something's missing somewhere.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Brian McLaren explores this brilliantly in Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? Christian Identity in a Multi-faith World.
Christianity is either strong and hostile or weak and benevolent. The third way - Jesus' way - is strong and benevolent.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0