Thread: Michael Nazir-Ali: go stick your head back whence it came Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005654
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
So, the Bench of Bigot Bishops decided that it was Michael Nazir-Ali's turn to flail wildly at something they disapprove of, and this time decided to demand that Fr Kelvin Holdsworth, Provost of St Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow, be subject to "appropriate discipline" for inviting a Muslim student to read from the Qu'ran during their Epiphany service.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/15/st-marys-cathedral-glasgow-quran-reading-david-chillingworth
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of having the reading, what on God's green earth is "appropriate discipline" in this instance? 100 hundred lines of "I will not allow readings from the Qu'ran in the Cathedral"? 20 press ups followed by a cold shower? Or, given how the tastes of these conservative types usually run, perhaps a spanking?
And while we're on the subject, does anyone have the slightest clue what the Primus actually thinks about this event? You have to admire the stamina of some people, you'd think the blisters from the fence post would wear them out after a while.
For the record, I find Fr Kelvin's explanation on his blog, www.thurible.net to be perfectly reasonable, and very much support his point about people commenting on second hand reports without actually finding out what happened first from someone who was there.
[host edit - decommaed URL]
[ 15. January 2017, 16:07: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
The link to Fr. Kelvin's blog seems to be unavailable...... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I personally have a lot of respect for the scholarly +Nazir-Ali (he re-licensed me as a Lay Reader in 2008, so he can't be all that bad), but I do think he might have done better to remain silent.
The SEC has a reputation for being open-minded, and fair play to them. If the passage from the Qu'ran reflected a belief that Jesus is not the 'Son of God' as understood by conservative Christians, too bad - the history of Christianity is littered with disputes (and martyrdoms) over what precisely that phrase may mean.
And many Muslims hold Our Lady in far more reverence than many Christians, anyway.
IJ
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Gah, there shouldn't be a www at the front. Try this:
http://thurible.net/
I'm afraid all I have to go on are Nazir-Ali's public pronouncements, most of which make him sound like a bit of a dick, and there is the lingering suspicion that his avowed homophobia is at least half the issue here.
[ 15. January 2017, 13:07: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Thanks - that works nicely.
So, What Fr. Kelvin Said.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
And to get 100 peeps (even including Muslims!) out to a weekday Sung Mass is indeed an impressive achievement.
Full marks to St. Mary's Cathedral, and to the Piskies! Keep up the Good Work...
IJ
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Seconded.
I think Westminster Abbey had a reading from the Qur'an on at least one occasion in the past.
I thought Nazir-Ali was going to wherever he was most needed when he retired.
About time he went as far away as possible.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I recently finished Bold as Love by one Bob Roberts Jr, a book given to me by someone I would not have imagined to be at all open to interfaith things.
Roberts describes his journey into multifaith (as he prefers to call it) gatherings - and he's a Southern Baptist.
It sounds as if there could have been a more tactful choice of reading, but if one has to take a stand on either side of this divide, I am firmly with Fr. Kelvin. I am not going to back off my friendship and hospitality to muslims just because it upsets some Christians.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
I am not someone who normally agrees with Nazir-Ali. Ever. I mean, along with Carey, I usually assume everything he utters is wrong.
However, on this one I think he's right, just for entirely the wrong reasons.
As part of the proclamation of Christ within the Eucharist, there is no place for anything that is not exactly that. The Liturgy of the Word is there to do nothing other than making Christ present, just as the Liturgy of the Eucharist that follows does, each in its own way. It is certainly not the place for gesture politics (of any kind!)
However,
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I am not going to back off my friendship and hospitality to muslims just because it upsets some Christians.
has nothing to do with whether or not it is proper to read from the Qu'ran during the Liturgy.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I help organise ecumencial services relatively often (interfaith ones far more rarely), but I admit that invoking Liturgy with a capital L is just one of those things that will get a blank stare from me.
I understand Liturgy is important to many people, but if the vehemence of Nazir-Ali's statement is directed merely at an act of liturgical incorrectness, I would guess he has quite a taste for camels and an entirely gnat-free diet.
[ 15. January 2017, 16:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
I certainly think there's space to hear what the Qur'an says in a Christian service, in much the same way that homilies often comment on various writings - both secular and theological - in order to illustrate some point or other.
I'm rather less sure about reading from the Qur'an in Arabic. Yes, I know that's what Muslims do, and presumably the Muslims that were present speak Arabic, but I wonder whether many of the other congregants understood it? And I wonder a bit whether Fr. Kelvin would be as keen to read the Gospel in Latin. (Perhaps he would, from time to time. Or perhaps not.)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I feel a bit for the student, he seems to have become something akin to a token Muslim, offering the this thing he holds as holy in a religious service whose central premise is that he is wrong.
I think he has been badly advised and the Cathedral should take a long hard look at themselves if they think it acceptable to have a Muslim perform like this.
Nazir-Ali is an arse, usually showing his faux intellectualism and bias every time he opens his mouth.
But he is not wrong here. Had to happen eventually.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
You'd hate to be in church here when there is drumming and singing, the burning of sweetgrass and smudging, prayers for Mother Earth, and our sponsored Moslem refugee family taking it all in witb rest of use. 🐉
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I have to say I'm profoundly disappointed that the hellions are avoiding speculating on the "appropriate discipline". ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I help organise ecumencial services relatively often (interfaith ones far more rarely), but I admit that invoking Liturgy with a capital L is just one of those things that will get a blank stare from me.
I understand Liturgy is important to many people, but if the vehemence of Nazir-Ali's statement is directed merely at an act of liturgical incorrectness, I would guess he has quite a taste for camels and an entirely gnat-free diet.
As in the Divine Liturgy, the Eucharist, the Mass. Not liturgy in general, but the very act that constitutes the Church.
The definite article was far more significant than the capital letter!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
It was an Epiphany service.
Christmas and Epiphany services - indeed many different Anglican services at any rate - sometimes include readings from other religious traditions, or even secular reflections. If anyone has ever attended any number of funerals, such readings, music and reflections are almost impossible to avoid. Does Nazir-Ali police every Anglican service in the Communion for un-Christian material? Or is it just Islamic material he has something against? Why not the atheists, or the meta-physical poets? Heaven knows what he makes of Gibran, Shelley, Blake, Milton etc etc. To say nothing of music written by atheists for religious use.
Clearly, this Epiphany service was one of a series where religious leaders and their people shared in worship of God. And ironically Epiphany is, of course, about the 'showing' of the truth of Christ to peoples as yet unacquainted with him. Heaven forbid, God should choose to demonstrate that in fact he's not entirely imprisoned in the tiny box we've built him called 'Church', but that portions of his truth leak out all over the place, as HE decides.
It's not a new alternative to Christianity, or an attempt to amalgamate all faiths into one. It's an attempt to show that even religious human beings - well, some anyway - are capable of recognizing the image of God in each other and practicing love of neighbour.
Well, somebody bloody has to. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
As in the Divine Liturgy, the Eucharist, the Mass. Not liturgy in general, but the very act that constitutes the Church.
The definite article was far more significant than the capital letter!
I apologise for displaying even more ignorance than I thought myself capable of in this respect, but I still think Anselmina's priorities are better than Nazir-Ali's on this.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I can't help feeling that including Islamic material in a Christian service is somehow insulting to Islam. Obviously the person who read it didn't feel that way or he wouldn't have done it, but I jut can't shake the feeling.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
If we can't create and encourage hospitality between faiths in the face of those who brandish religious exclusivism as a weapon, sometimes literally so, we may as well kiss our democracies goodbye now.
Mutual recognition of faith traditions in a secular society is the only way forward for any of them and indeed for all of us, and the Church should be at the forefront of that.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If we can't create and encourage hospitality between faiths in the face of those who brandish religious exclusivism as a weapon, sometimes literally so, we may as well kiss our democracies goodbye now.
Is it necessary to share another faith's scriptures in our own services to do that? A sine qua non of interfaith goodwill?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I think a lot depends on how the reading was introduced. I would be most uncomfortable if the impression was given, in a Christian service, that the Qu'ran should be reckoned as equally spiritually authoritative as the Bible.
On the other hand, if it was introduced along the lines of "This story is also found in the Muslim tradition and this is how they view it", IMO that would be rather different.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Clearly, this Epiphany service was one of a series where religious leaders and their people shared in worship of God. And ironically Epiphany is, of course, about the 'showing' of the truth of Christ to peoples as yet unacquainted with him. Heaven forbid, God should choose to demonstrate that in fact he's not entirely imprisoned in the tiny box we've built him called 'Church', but that portions of his truth leak out all over the place, as HE decides.
But the point of Epiphany is that ultimately all truth leads to Jesus Christ, who is understood as God incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity, the highest Prophet. The issue in particular as I understood from the service in question is that that portion from the Koran expressly rejects the doctrinal belief that is at the heart of the Christian Eucharist.
To quote the final lines from T.S. Eliot's "The Journey of the Magi":
quote:
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.
The point that Eliot makes is that certainly the Magi, coming from a tradition other than that of Israel were welcomed and embraced by the Christ Child, but that as a result of the welcome, the Magi thus rejected their former pagan traditions in order to accept the new truth in Christ.
This is not to say that there is not a place for readings from other religions or secular literature, but the Eucharist might not be the most appropriate venue for it.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Furthermore, reading the Dean's argument, I think he is trying to mix an interfaith service with a Christian Eucharist.
I think it is inappropriate to have the Creed recited when there is an intention to do interfaith hospitality.
Typically, in some churches in Canada, not entirely to my liking, I have seen the Creed replaced by the Summary of the Law as an alternative affirmation of faith:
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord..."
However, in this instance, that might be warrant the substitution.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
"Appropriate discipline" would seem to be an interfaith meal at a local mosque with Nazir-Ali and the Provost required to attend.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If we can't create and encourage hospitality between faiths in the face of those who brandish religious exclusivism as a weapon, sometimes literally so, we may as well kiss our democracies goodbye now.
Is it necessary to share another faith's scriptures in our own services to do that? A sine qua non of interfaith goodwill?
Of course it isn't necessary. A lot of the time it probably isn't even desirable.
However, it isn't necessary for a just God to forgive a sinful people, or to provide the means of grace by which they may return to him completely reconciled, as if born completely anew. If God merely stuck to what was necessary we'd all be buggered, big time. Not even a merely merciful God is obligated to do more than the necessary, if he wants to play by the 'rules'. But a gracious God will do unheard of and unexpected things to win back his creation to himself. Hence the body and blood of God himself crucified on a tree.
Why not let prodigal graciousness and risky love have a go once in a while?
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
What does a bishop (retired) of the Dhurch of ENgland think he is doing attempting to interfere in the affairs of the Episcopal CHurch of Scotland? It reminds me a little of Welby's attempt to ignore the SEC in order to rach an agreement on jurisdiction with the CHurch of Scotland. Contempt for the SEC in both cases.
John
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
On the other hand, if it was introduced along the lines of "This story is also found in the Muslim tradition and this is how they view it", IMO that would be rather different.
But the article says that the Qur'an was read in Arabic. How many of the non-Muslims present spoke any Arabic? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the number was close to zero.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If we can't create and encourage hospitality between faiths in the face of those who brandish religious exclusivism as a weapon, sometimes literally so, we may as well kiss our democracies goodbye now.
Is it necessary to share another faith's scriptures in our own services to do that? A sine qua non of interfaith goodwill?
Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money used to help the poor?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If we can't create and encourage hospitality between faiths in the face of those who brandish religious exclusivism as a weapon, sometimes literally so, we may as well kiss our democracies goodbye now.
Mutual recognition of faith traditions in a secular society is the only way forward for any of them and indeed for all of us, and the Church should be at the forefront of that.
An idea that breaks down as soon as some thought is given to it. Satanists have a different understanding if Satan than Christians. So are you suggesting elements of their liturgy is appropriate for a church?
You don't "respect" another faith position by trying to crowbar them into your service.
It is is thing making a statement that x believes y. It is quite another to ask a representative to perform part of their religious heritage for your enjoyment and within the context of a service whose very purpose is saying that they are wrong.
That's not being hospitable, that's playing him like a puppet.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money used to help the poor?
Nothing to do with it.
The only way interfaith can possibly be respectful is in the context of mutuality. Which cannot possibly be a Christian service asserting Christ's divinity for a Muslim - that is inherrently incompatible.
One can arguably do it in the context of a service which is carefully crafted to focus on things the religions have in common, but that's very clearly not what was happening here.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
This is akin to announcing "..next in our series looking at damn stupid ideas is Islam, and we are very grateful to our friend Ahmed for coming today to give us a demonstration of how to read the Koran in perfect Koran Arabic.
After Ahmed has finished, we will continue at page 45 of the Prayer Book, the Apostles Creed."
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But the article says that the Qur'an was read in Arabic. How many of the non-Muslims present spoke any Arabic? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the number was close to zero.
I thought I'd read that the Arabic reading was followed by an English translation - but perhaps I was wrong.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
As I said, my impression is that the vehemence of Nazir-Ali's comments is explained, not by the detail of just what went down, but by a refusal of the very idea of hospitality to other faiths.
Of course there are pitfalls, not to mention deliberate traps, in interfaith relations and I have experienced my fair share of them, but to jump all over the details in public is to send out entirely the wrong message - one that the Guardian has unsurprisingly not been slow in jumping on, and one that the rabid populists dreaming of "making the UK a Christian Nation" once again have not been slow to line up in support of.
The popular trend is all in favour of building walls of all kinds right now. The Church's emphasis right now should be the opposite, even if it makes some mistakes along the way.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As I said, my impression is that the vehemence of Nazir-Ali's comments is explained, not by the detail of just what went down, but by a refusal of the very idea of hospitality to other faiths.
Very likely, he has a bee in his bonnet about Islam and seems to crave a platform to loudly state how incompatible it is with British values.
But context matters, just because he is an arse doesn't mean he is wrong in this case.
quote:
Of course there are pitfalls, not to mention deliberate traps, in interfaith relations and I have experienced my fair share of them, but to jump all over the details in public is to send out entirely the wrong message - one that the Guardian has unsurprisingly not been slow in jumping on, and one that the rabid populists dreaming of "making the UK a Christian Nation" once again have not been slow to line up in support of.
The popular trend is all in favour of building walls of all kinds right now. The Church's emphasis right now should be the opposite, even if it makes some mistakes along the way.
No disagreement here. I'm all for interfaith work based on respect, together with efforts to help different religious groups with various struggles, particularly when there is bias eg in building regulations.
But that's not the same as parading a person from a different religion in the midst of a specific religious service.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The popular trend is all in favour of building walls of all kinds right now. The Church's emphasis right now should be the opposite, even if it makes some mistakes along the way.
Yes, and this is very much the theme of the material from 2 Cor. 5 prepared for this week's "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity".
(And, yes, I'm well aware that "interfaith" and "ecumenical" are two very different things!)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, and this is very much the theme of the material from 2 Cor. 5 prepared for this week's "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity".
This is very true, but I can't help thinking the German preparation committee were Pink Floyd fans in their youth, and will be hard pushed not to draw the comparison during the two events I'll be involved in.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
You may well be write - especially if said members are "of a certain age".
Of course, you might also want to think of this song.
[ 16. January 2017, 07:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
(Or even "right"! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
).
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
It's hard to think of a more inappropriate day for a reading from the Koran denying the divinity of Christ at an SEC Eucharist, and the Presiding Bishop's comments are apt. How did Bp Michael come to make that statement? My suspicion is that he was telephoned by the Guardian in the hope that he'd provide a bit of ammunition. Sadly he obliged with a comment more extremely worded than was necessary.
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think a lot depends on how the reading was introduced. I would be most uncomfortable if the impression was given, in a Christian service, that the Qu'ran should be reckoned as equally spiritually authoritative as the Bible.
On the other hand, if it was introduced along the lines of "This story is also found in the Muslim tradition and this is how they view it", IMO that would be rather different.
I don't know Fr. Kelvin very well, but do feel I know him and the Cathedral well enough to know that there is no way in a million years that it would have been your first scenario, and that if it had been then the complaints would have been coming from within the Cathedral rather than externally.
What I am struggling to understand from all this is why it has unleashed so much abuse of such a level of hatred that the police are having to investigate it, and specifically why so many Christians feel that it is acceptable to bully and threaten another Christian community that they know nothing about other than hearsay from the likes of Bp Nazir-Ali.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Agree 100%. Clearly this issue has touched a nerve which has little to do with the "presenting" issue.
[ 16. January 2017, 09:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I feel a bit for the student, he seems to have become something akin to a token Muslim, offering the this thing he holds as holy in a religious service whose central premise is that he is wrong.
I think he has been badly advised and the Cathedral should take a long hard look at themselves if they think it acceptable to have a Muslim perform like this.
Nazir-Ali is an arse, usually showing his faux intellectualism and bias every time he opens his mouth.
But he is not wrong here. Had to happen eventually.
Um, not really. Having read the blog post, it sounds like having someone of another faith to read during that particular service was something they’d done regularly. Without anyone being bothered. So, within the life of that church and community, perfectly okay. Not tokenistic or shoehorning. Just encouraging people to share with each other to build understanding, friendships and community cohesion. Until this year when the media asked retired-Bishop-Rent-a-Gob for a pithy quote.
The local Remembrance service has representatives from all the local faith communities who read and pray. Including the lman. Representatives from the local churches attend festivals at the local Mosque. Darned inter-faith co-operation and the whole loving thy neighbour thing. We’ll have none of that here. Christian churches for Christian people.
Tubbs
[ 16. January 2017, 09:47: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Does the "Um, not really" refer to my post, or not? - we cross-posted and I revised mine!
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Does the "Um, not really" refer to my post, or not? - we cross-posted and I revised mine!
No, I forgot to quote from the post I was replying too. Added it in to make it clearer. (Need.More.Coffee)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
How did Bp Michael come to make that statement? My suspicion is that he was telephoned by the Guardian in the hope that he'd provide a bit of ammunition. Sadly he obliged with a comment more extremely worded than was necessary.
The statement is on his blog. The Guardian naturally did not fail to notice it.
Perhaps Nazir-Ali is taking notes on Trump's playbook.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The local Remembrance service has representatives from all the local faith communities who read and pray. Including the lman. Representatives from the local churches attend festivals at the local Mosque. Darned inter-faith co-operation and the whole loving thy neighbour thing. We’ll have none of that here. Christian churches for Christian people.
Tubbs
But Remembrance is people of all faiths coming together to pray together - I have no issue with that whatsoever.
I'm slightly more uncomfortable with other faiths (regardless of which) being inserted into Communion. In much the same way as it would be deeply inappropriate for the Pope to read from the Gospels to Hajj pilgrims. Other religions' MMV but I'm sure they've all got a line somewhere.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Saint Mary's Cathedral birthed this Anglican. I have very fond memories of that place and even then (over twenty years ago) they were involved in tentatively and carefully reaching out to their Muslim neighbours in a meaningful way and in a form that involved a true sharing of faith traditions and mutual respect of one anthers' traditions.
But alas, it has been many years since I was last kneeling at that altar. I wasn't at the service concerned, nor do I know all the background leading up to it and I wasn't party to any of the discussions, nor do I know the exact context in which it took place (at what point in the service....or after it, or before it). However, knowing the careful work that has been done there over many, many years that was in a sense a deeply prophetic work in a world that now clamours to label all Muslims with the same brush and in the current climate of a more insular kingdom, I would be inclined not to pass a judgement too quickly. I don't think we have anyone who was actually there commenting on this thread, unless I missed it.
As for Nazir. Well, there is a certain type of church man who has a greedy ambition for what they feel they deserve and when they don't get it they often implode, scattering shards like this example. Perhaps that sounds a little more vicious than it is meant, but it's just an observation.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
It rather annoyed Fregory on that Bookface thing. But if it annoys Nazir-Ali I can't help liking it a bit.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Um, not really. Having read the blog post, it sounds like having someone of another faith to read during that particular service was something they’d done regularly. Without anyone being bothered.
Not sure the lack of anyone being bothered is relevant.
As a note, it may well be the case that an individual Muslim is not worried about performing in a Cathedral, several times Muslims have told me that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all the same - and in the next breath say that of course Islam is the superior and final revelation.
Which feels a little like an Anglican church inviting a Mormon to contribute to a service, in the knowledge that they believe their revelation is complete and that yours is impaired, if not actually utterly broken.
quote:
So, within the life of that church and community, perfectly okay. Not tokenistic or shoehorning. Just encouraging people to share with each other to build understanding, friendships and community cohesion. Until this year when the media asked retired-Bishop-Rent-a-Gob for a pithy quote.
Listen, there are plenty of groups who do all kinds of things I dont agree with, including some belief systems like unitarians who think it is entirely appropriate to pick-and-choose the best bits of religion from whetever they like.
Fair play to them I say.
But in this scenario the context is an Anglican set liturgy for Epiphany where the church asserts, amongst other things, the deity of Christ.
If it was a different context, perhaps meeting to chat over coffee or to listen to different religious views, that would be completely different.
quote:
The local Remembrance service has representatives from all the local faith communities who read and pray. Including the lman. Representatives from the local churches attend festivals at the local Mosque. Darned inter-faith co-operation and the whole loving thy neighbour thing. We’ll have none of that here. Christian churches for Christian people.
Tubbs
Nothing to do with anything.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It rather annoyed Fregory on that Bookface thing. But if it annoys Nazir-Ali I can't help liking it a bit.
You saw that as well?
I have PM-ed him over it ...
I must confess that anything that annoys Nazir-Ali tends to get my vote too.
In this instance, though, I tend to think the Provost acted sincerely but unwisely.
As mr cheesy has observed, inviting a Muslim to participate in a service where Christ is clearly proclaimed as God - which is what the Provost himself claims was done at the service - smacks of disingenuousness.
I'm all for inter-faith dialogue but it does smack of tokenism to me and a kind of 'Look at us, look how inclusive we are, we've even got a Muslim reading from the Quran at our Epiphany service ...' type of approach.
I can understand the Orthodox - as well as Anglican evangelicals and conservative Anglicans generally - having an issue with this.
What I didn't like on that Bookface thing was the way some of the Hyper-dox came on ranting and raving, 'Is outrage ... Protestant is sect. Anglican is not True Church. Anglican is nest of vipers. There is no Jesus in sect. No go to heaven in sect. Is outrage. Synagogue of Satan. Outrage ...' yadda yadda yadda yadda
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
A church is a gathered community. And what’s appropriate in the context of one community might not be for another. As a few people have pointed out, none of us were at the service. None of first hand knowledge of the inner workings of that cathedral. Just what we’ve read. And, on that basis, I’m done here.
I used the Remembrance Day example because, as people’s views of Muslims have become more negative, attitudes to them participating have changed. Sadly. The presence of the local Rabbi / Sikh Granthi pass without comment.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ironic, really. The Epiphany is a story about three blokes from outside the faith who, despite probably having some theologically dodgy ideas, knew enough to recognise something important was going on.
And here we are having a debate about whether it's okay to let people from different belief systems be a part of a celebration centred on God.
[ 16. January 2017, 11:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
A church is a gathered community. And what’s appropriate in the context of one community might not be for another. As a few people have pointed out, none of us were at the service. None of first hand knowledge of the inner workings of that cathedral. Just what we’ve read. And, on that basis, I’m done here.
This is a whole new level of faux indignation, as if nobody can talk or have an opinion about a church service they've not attended. Nonsense.
Yes, we only know what we read, but it is the context of what we read from those who ran the event that I am objecting to.
Fair enough to disagree with what I'm saying, quite another thing to say I have no right to take a view.
quote:
J used the Remembrance Day example because, as people’s views of Muslims have become more negative, attitudes to them participating have changed. Sadly. The presence of the local Rabbi / Sikh Granthi pass without comment.
Thousands of Sikhs, Jews and others fought and died in the wars, it is entirely appropriate to include them in a civil remembrance service. If only all civil remembrance services we that inclusive.
But that's a completely different thing to an Anglican liturgical service marking a feast day. How is that even vaguely the same?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In this instance, though, I tend to think the Provost acted sincerely but unwisely.
And I imagine that's what they kept saying about Jesus, too. Especially when he kept doing things in the synagogue that the church officials weren't crazy about. If memory serves they even wanted to throw him off a cliff for the way he self-appropriated a prophecy! So maybe the cathedral staff oughtn't to be too astonished at the vitriol and hate their, apparently, regular and hitherto completely uncontroversial sharing in worship has led to.
I don't know enough of the details - eg, was it a eucharist? or an interfaith service? both? - to really make a final judgement on this occasion. And I don't think sincerity should necessarily trumps wisdom. But sadly, I suppose one shouldn't be surprized that Christians can hate so much when their own vision of ecclesial practice isn't replicated by everyone else.
My instinct is that Jesus would always have seen the people first and foremost, and the canon law somewhere a little further down the list. Perhaps he may not have agreed with a Samaritan participating in a synagogue ceremony - who knows? The rebuke of Christ for the sincerely unwise, I imagine, would be a loving and kind form of correction. But I'm quite sure he would've found something radical, challenging and expressive of his love for the Samaritan and his disgust at the Samaritan's enemies, in response to any angry narrow-minded finger-pointing by Jewish religious officials.
With reference to the reading done in Arabic. It would be only right, of course, to have had the English translation on hand, too. But even without that I feel like saying, facetiously, well, that's one way to know what your average non-churchgoer feels like every time they go to a service. Probably many ordinary churchgoers, for that matter! We may do our schtick in English, but for more people than we realize it's about as comprehensible as if it were in a foreign language!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, I'm not condoning the reactions I've seen online nor the stick that the Provost has been receiving, to the extent that it seems the police have had to get involved ...
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
What bothers me most is the kind of shoot-first, ask questions later tone of some of the comments I've seen online.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
A church is a gathered community. And what’s appropriate in the context of one community might not be for another. As a few people have pointed out, none of us were at the service. None of first hand knowledge of the inner workings of that cathedral. Just what we’ve read. And, on that basis, I’m done here.
This is a whole new level of faux indignation, as if nobody can talk or have an opinion about a church service they've not attended. Nonsense.
Yes, we only know what we read, but it is the context of what we read from those who ran the event that I am objecting to.
Fair enough to disagree with what I'm saying, quite another thing to say I have no right to take a view.
quote:
J used the Remembrance Day example because, as people’s views of Muslims have become more negative, attitudes to them participating have changed. Sadly. The presence of the local Rabbi / Sikh Granthi pass without comment.
Thousands of Sikhs, Jews and others fought and died in the wars, it is entirely appropriate to include them in a civil remembrance service. If only all civil remembrance services we that inclusive.
But that's a completely different thing to an Anglican liturgical service marking a feast day. How is that even vaguely the same?
I'm just saying that as I wasn't there and have no first hand knowledge or the means of getting it, I've decided to stay out of it. You're free to disagree with that and comment all you like. What was that about faux indignation again?!
And you're wilfully misunderstanding my comment. People of all faiths fought and died in the wars and should be represented at the service. But where I live, only one faith leader gets negative comments.
If I was more cynical, I'd wonder if some people's reactions had more to do with the person praying than the prayer.
Tubbs
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
I suppose it was too much to hope that this might fall under the SoF radar....
quote:
posted by fletcher Christian:
I don't think we have anyone who was actually there commenting on this thread, unless I missed it.
You called? I am a member of St Mary's Episcopal Cathedral, Glasgow and have been for a number of years. I was at this Epiphany service. (Church & work prevented me chipping in sooner)
To clear up a few factual details:
The student who chanted/recited from the Qu'ran was a young lady and she was accompanied by members of her community.
The recitation was indeed in Arabic, with the English translation in the service bulletin. This is our usual practice: if the choir sings a Latin setting of the mass or anthems in Latin, Russian, Icelandic, German, French (all of which happen on a pretty regular basis) or indeed any other language, translations are provided.
quote:
posted by Baptist Train Fan:
I would be most uncomfortable if the impression was given, in a Christian service, that the Qu'ran should be reckoned as equally spiritually authoritative as the Bible.
On the other hand, if it was introduced along the lines of "This story is also found in the Muslim tradition and this is how they view it", IMO that would be rather different.
My italics, but this is how it was. Definitely no suggestion that the Qu'ran should be reckoned authoritative. I think that, as a congregation, we get that Muslims don't view the divinity of Christ as we do: it doesn't alter our belief in His divinity or change the fact that it's what we proclaim. Nor does the difference prevent us offering and receiving hospitality from our Muslim neighbours. And at this service, we proclaimed the divinity of Christ and preached God's love.
This is not something new to us: we've had recitations from the Qu'ran over the Christmas/Epiphany season before. The Bishop was present on one of these occasions. It's never caused this sort of shit-storm before, and from what I've heard from my fellow congregants, we're really at a bit of a loss to understand why it's been an issue this time.
Anselmina had it right:
quote:
It's not a new alternative to Christianity, or an attempt to amalgamate all faiths into one. It's an attempt to show that even religious human beings - well, some anyway - are capable of recognizing the image of God in each other and practicing love of neighbour.
You may disagree with the way my congregation and community do things. There are those who do, and that's absolutely fine. Good disagreement is a thing, and it's OK. Hate (which we have experienced this week) is not.
[ 16. January 2017, 16:04: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
Bloody coding. Please could some passing host fix previous post for me. Taeverso.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
Bloody coding. Please could some passing host fix previous post for me. Taeverso.
Thank you for posting. As I was passing and it's either this or a very big spreadsheet ...
Tubbs
[ 16. January 2017, 16:08: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
we're really at a bit of a loss to understand why it's been an issue this time.
1/ Brexit
2/ A certain bishop hasn't been in the news for a bit.
It's almost certainly nothing to do with you or your congregation. Please carry on as you were...
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Well, yes - those awful Scots, most of whom actually want to stay part of the EU, even though Europe is mostly made up of People Not Like Us! Why, some of the People Not Like Us are brown, and speak Arabic, and believe in another religion!
It simply Will Not Do. How unlike the Home Life Of Our Own Dear Queen - and how thankful we must be to God that she is not the Head of those wretched Piskies.
The irony here, of course, is that +Nazir-Ali hails from what is now Pakistan....
IJ
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
If I was more cynical, I'd wonder if some people's reactions had more to do with the person praying than the prayer.
Well, quite. I wouldn't have done it myself but lots of things happen in Anglican churches that I wouldn't have done myself, carried out by people of goodwill, doing the best they could according to their consciences. On my list of stuff to get indignant about this comes about 574th.
Frankly it's nowhere near as contemptible as Westminster Abbey flying the flag at half-mast to note the death of the persecutor of the church, the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. I don't recall +Michael getting indignant about that, although if I missed it I will accept the correction.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Gamaliel, I know you don't in any way represent the 'hate' contingent. You make some good points which really help the discussion, in my opinion.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The irony here, of course, is that +Nazir-Ali hails from what is now Pakistan....
And HMQ is, of course, descended from a German family ...
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
IJ
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Three questions remains to be answered: why did the reader go beyond the text as originally given (which was translated in the service book)?
Was it a mistake or an intentional act?
Was the translation into English omitted deliberately or by mistake (if the original intention was the full passage)?
When these 3 are answered, then then we may know more - but may need to enquire more.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
The recitation was indeed in Arabic, with the English translation in the service bulletin. This is our usual practice: if the choir sings a Latin setting of the mass or anthems in Latin, Russian, Icelandic, German, French (all of which happen on a pretty regular basis) or indeed any other language, translations are provided.
Thanks, kingsfold. This is also our practice when the choir sings in foreign (Latin and Spanish are our most common foreign tongues, although others appear. Don't think they've ever sung in Icelandic, though.) It is our usual practice for anthems in English, too: a lot of choral settings are rich with repetition and multi-part harmonies that tend to obscure the actual language.
Readings seem a little different to me. The only time we've read a lesson in a foreign language would be the Gospel at Pentecost, where we have sometimes done the simultaneous reading in lots of different languages thing. Even then, the Gospel in English has been delivered over the microphone so that it was audible over the background of the languages most people don't speak.
Which brings me to
quote:
"This story is also found in the Muslim tradition and this is how they view it"
followed by a recitation in a language that probably none of the Christians there speak. Which is what confuses me. It doesn't really communicate, does it? If you're going to have one of your Muslim neighbours tell you how they view the virgin birth, having her chant it in Arabic doesn't actually communicate anything.
So I'm a bit confused about what it was for.
Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Three questions remains to be answered: why did the reader go beyond the text as originally given (which was translated in the service book)?
Was it a mistake or an intentional act?
Was the translation into English omitted deliberately or by mistake (if the original intention was the full passage)?
When these 3 are answered, then then we may know more - but may need to enquire more.
Are you serious?
Do you think so little of people that you imagine this would be something they would do??
I feel bad for you.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
Just chipping in to add my support for kingsfold and her church. Two communities of devout people, confident in their own faith teachings, conducted themselves with generosity and dignity. I am deeply impressed.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Rather than get himself in a state about readings from the Koran, how about Nazir-Ali start a campaign to stop readings about dinosaurs and velveteen rabbits being included in weddings?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm beginning to think some of you have never, ever watched a movie with subtitles.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Rather than get himself in a state about readings from the Koran, how about Nazir-Ali start a campaign to stop readings about dinosaurs and velveteen rabbits being included in weddings?
Now that I could get behind, along with banning sentimental homemade vows that belong rather inside a Valentine's card.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And home-made doggerel, badly read, at funerals (together with the ghastly "I have only gone to next room" thing).
As it happens, I frequently use poems or other meditations in services, with the aim of reinforcing or perhaps providing a different perspective to the theme in hand. These are usually Christian but may be secular - although I've never used a Scripture from a different religious tradition.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
What? No Old Testament reading?
IJ
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Readings seem a little different to me. The only time we've read a lesson in a foreign language would be the Gospel at Pentecost, where we have sometimes done the simultaneous reading in lots of different languages thing. Even then, the Gospel in English has been delivered over the microphone so that it was audible over the background of the languages most people don't speak.
FWIW my parents' stratospherically High Anglican church had a community of Iranian Christian asylum seekers, and for a while used to have an extra Gospel reading in Farsi.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Cat:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Three questions remains to be answered: why did the reader go beyond the text as originally given (which was translated in the service book)?
Was it a mistake or an intentional act?
Was the translation into English omitted deliberately or by mistake (if the original intention was the full passage)?
When these 3 are answered, then then we may know more - but may need to enquire more.
Are you serious?
Do you think so little of people that you imagine this would be something they would do??
I feel bad for you.
I am serious, yes.
It's nothing to do with thinking little of people - it's actually the reverse: seeking to find out what's going on which leads them to behave/respond/react/in the way they do.
People do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. It might be an accident or by design or but there is still (generally) a purpose behind it. Since the event has caused a lot of pain for a lot of people it might be helpful for some of those people to understand why the reader read further than the translated passage.
I don't have an axe to grind either way - I am actually interested to hear why she thought it appropriate or necessary to read the verses she did.
None of my business of course but it might pour oil on other troubled waters.
[ 17. January 2017, 17:09: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on
:
AIUA, the translated passage in the pew sheet, (and, I imagine, the passage agreed on in advance) stopped short of the contentious verses, so I'm imagining the reader continued by accident (as I have, at evensong, one time, when I got the verse numbers a bit mixed up).
Imagine how mortified she must feel. Then remind yourself how hard it is to do this stuff, and how courageous you have to be to even have a go.
The CofE cowards making judgments in the press can fuck the fuck off. And I still feel bad for you.
[ 17. January 2017, 19:27: Message edited by: Mad Cat ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW my parents' stratospherically High Anglican church had a community of Iranian Christian asylum seekers, and for a while used to have an extra Gospel reading in Farsi.
Nothing at all wrong with that - indeed much to be encouraged just as there are Chinese Anglican churches here where the entire service is in Mandarin. What is wrong is to have a reading which denies the deity of Christ as a part of the Eucharist.
I'd go further and say that those setting the liturgy for any interfaith service (and this was not one) ought take particular care to avoid a passage that was offensive to other participants. So the Beatitudes would be excellent, John 1 totally wrong.
[ 17. January 2017, 20:03: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
I think it's stupid in the first place to include readings in the Mass which are not from the Bible.
It's doubly stupid when you are celebrating a feast which draws attention to manifestations of the divinity of Christ.
But Bishop Nazir-Ali seems to be in denial of the fact that he is serving in a communion where both of those things are generally seen as OK. Given the courage of his convictions, he should pack up for an institution which proclaims the Gospel in which he believes, because the Latitudinarians have won in his own and there's no rolling *that* back.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW my parents' stratospherically High Anglican church had a community of Iranian Christian asylum seekers, and for a while used to have an extra Gospel reading in Farsi.
ie. a language spoken by a number of the congregants, and a perfectly appropriate thing to do (I assume it was the same Gospel reading).
We had a wedding at our place recently where most of the service was in both English and Spanish (the bride, groom, and groom's family all spoke English, but many of the bride's family spoke only Spanish. So we include them as much as we reasonably can.
Again, nothing wrong with that.
The issue isn't English as some kind of magic language, it's a question of whether the people you are talking to can understand what you're saying. And if you object to having readings from the Bible in Latin, I think you also ought to object to having readings from the Qur'an in Arabic.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And if you object to having readings from the Bible in Latin, I think you also ought to object to having readings from the Qur'an in Arabic.
As I understand it, it is more important for Muslims for the Qur'an be read in its original Arabic than it is for Christians to have the Bible read in its original... Latin ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Absolutely. Should be Aramaic, Hebrew and Chaldean. We'd all understand those.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Cat:
AIUA, the translated passage in the pew sheet, (and, I imagine, the passage agreed on in advance) stopped short of the contentious verses, so I'm imagining the reader continued by accident (as I have, at evensong, one time, when I got the verse numbers a bit mixed up).
Imagine how mortified she must feel. Then remind yourself how hard it is to do this stuff, and how courageous you have to be to even have a go.
The CofE cowards making judgments in the press can fuck the fuck off. And I still feel bad for you.
Thanks for your reply.
I agree - it's very hard to stand up and read in this kind of context.I am not decrying that. I don't find reading things publicly that easy either - poor eyesight means I flick over words, even lines. A jumbled accent (I'm not exactly RP)means I trash words. I much prefer to talk without reading.
I notice you use "imagine" quite a lot in your response. It suggests a level of guesswork about the passage agreed in advance ... continued by accident ....how mortified she must feel.
The point is that we just don't know unless there is a clear and equivocal statement from the parties involved which clarifies how intent relates to delivery. The longer it goes on without such a clear statement, the more the media storm (whether we like it or not) will continue to rage.
Neither side is helping. The insulting e mails to complain (having said response is everyone's right to something said in a public context), alongside Kelvin Holdsworth's silence on the matter.
It doesn't help when the public statement we have had says little more than "because some people have been nasty, we're not saying much at all." We still haven't heard from the reader either directly or through the Cathedral PR machine.
If - and it's a massive if - the reading was continued to make some kind of statement then the parties involved should stand up and be counted.
If Kelvin was aware that the reading would continue, then I'd suggest he has a number of issues to address, not least the fact that the service sheet didn't include a translation of the lot. Why might that be? Mistake, omission or choice?
If it's all a mistake then say so - and regret the offence caused to Christians to hear the Divinity of Christ traduced in this way. It's a pretty foundational issue in the genuine faith understanding of many. No one has yet admitted to either. People read a lot into silence.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
We still haven't heard from the reader either directly or through the Cathedral PR machine.
Considering the hate-filled response from apparently aggressive people to her participation in the service, protecting the woman who read would be the right thing to do. Pouring oil on troubled waters, rather than aggravating a situation where, according to the police, there is already enough to be concerned about for further investigation would perhaps be a better way forward. It's hard to see what would be helped by exposing her further to that kind of violence.
It's to be understood that outraged Christians - and others unhappy with what's happened - want justification, or redress or whatever species of punishment, sorry, 'appropriate discipline' applied to the 'guilty' parties. But I don't think that should include the student who did the reading.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
...the ghastly "I have only gone to next room" thing).
Please, Lord, *don't* let the next life take place in that room we keep all the junk in, but we're always planning to empty out, so we can maybe put a bed in and use it as a guest room, or a desk for home office....
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
We still haven't heard from the reader either directly or through the Cathedral PR machine.
But I don't think that should include the student who did the reading.
I agree with you up to a point. Certainly any kind of abuse and all calls to punish, are wrong. But how do we get any kind of grasp of what happened and why if we don't ask the questions?
It is beginning to appear as if considered questions and debate are being repressed. Kelvin has referenced his sexuality and the attacks he's had. We are not on the point.
If it was an error then make it clear. If it was a deliberate act then say so - and perhaps explain?
In the event that it might - just - have been a considered act then whoever's decision it was needs to come clean and not hide behind anything or anyone.
[ 18. January 2017, 11:49: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Hmm. If it was a genuine mistake, let that be admitted - we are all (Christians and Muslims alike) a miserable company of poor, perishing sinners.
OTOH, if it was deliberate, what ExclamationMark said.
IJ
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I have no idea why this point hasn't been made before, and apologise if it has.
However, it appears to have escaped people's notice that we are talking specifically about the feast of the epiphany, which celebrates Christ as God's self-revelation to the gentiles. The magi were astrologers, which is about as far outside the Jewish fold, which I am projecting forward in time to become the Judeo-Christian fold, as can be imagined.
In this context, a monotheist who accepts Christ as a prophet and the Jewish scriptures on a similar basis to the Christian understanding next to them seems to me to be a very small stretch, if one at all. Astrologers looking to pay homage to a king seem to me to be far further from the Christian "mark" than Muslims giving a reading about a prophet whom they revere as such, prophesying about a God whom, to my mind, there is no serious doubt is the Jewish Ha Shem.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
In this context, a monotheist who accepts Christ as a prophet and the Jewish scriptures on a similar basis to the Christian understanding next to them seems to me to be a very small stretch, if one at all. Astrologers looking to pay homage to a king seem to me to be far further from the Christian "mark" than Muslims giving a reading about a prophet whom they revere as such, prophesying about a God whom, to my mind, there is no serious doubt is the Jewish Ha Shem.
Well - yes, to an extent.
But that extent only works if one is forced into a particular context, in this case a Eucharistic service for the feast of the Epiphany.
So we might say "OK, this is Epiphany, so we can legitimately invite Jews, Muslims, Zooastrians.. because they're part of this story.." but that seems to ignore the fact that these invited guests are being asked to be bit-players in an act of Christian worship.
I rather hope that it is true that the student read more than they were intended. Because that act rather subverted and blew the lid on the idea that one could have members of another faith parachuted into an act of Christian worship with no consequence.
Good on her.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
In this context, a monotheist who accepts Christ as a prophet and the Jewish scriptures on a similar basis to the Christian understanding next to them seems to me to be a very small stretch, if one at all. Astrologers looking to pay homage to a king seem to me to be far further from the Christian "mark" than Muslims giving a reading about a prophet whom they revere as such, prophesying about a God whom, to my mind, there is no serious doubt is the Jewish Ha Shem.
Well - yes, to an extent.
But that extent only works if one is forced into a particular context, in this case a Eucharistic service for the feast of the Epiphany.
So we might say "OK, this is Epiphany, so we can legitimately invite Jews, Muslims, Zooastrians.. because they're part of this story.." but that seems to ignore the fact that these invited guests are being asked to be bit-players in an act of Christian worship.
I rather hope that it is true that the student read more than they were intended. Because that act rather subverted and blew the lid on the idea that one could have members of another faith parachuted into an act of Christian worship with no consequence.
Good on her.
If it is true that she read more than intended as an intentional act, then perhaps she needs to front up a bit more: the cathedral is taking the flak for her as it stands. If it's an honest mistake well then "lessons have been learned."
As yet we don't know either way but the longer it goes on without any further clarity, the more murkier it looks. It brings honour to no one.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If it is true that she read more than intended as an intentional act, then perhaps she needs to front up a bit more: the cathedral is taking the flak for her as it stands. If it's an honest mistake well then "lessons have been learned."
I disagree with this. She was asked to perform in an act of Christian worship (which in-and-of-itself is an act of saying Christianity is superior to other religions). If she used that opportunity to subtly make it clear that her own profession as at odds with the whole basis of the service (by reading a few extra lines from the Koran), than I think this act of non-violent resistance to the religious powers-that-be is hilarious and should be applauded.
If it was just a mistake, then that's a bit of a let down in comparison.
She doesn't, in my view, need to explain anything. She's a Muslim, it would be pretty bloody odd if she didn't believe those extra lines.
Not all Muslims would have done it - but then not all Christians would have been so stupid as to ask a Muslim to read from their holy book in an act of Christian worship. I can think of many Christians would who have applauded this act of resistance if the boot had been on the other foot.
quote:
As yet we don't know either way but the longer it goes on without any further clarity, the more murkier it looks. It brings honour to no one.
I dunno, I don't think it is murky, I just think it is naive and stupid.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Oh for fuck's sake.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Oh for fuck's sake.
Oh no, someone disagrees with the Fount of All Anglican Reasonableness.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Does anyone seriously believe any part of the SEC, nevermind Glasgow Cathedral, has a "PR machine"? Everything I've seen indicates the "PR machine" consists of Fr Kelvin. And that's it. The SEC has the resources and personnel equivalent to perhaps a small CofE diocese.
If find the insinuations of dubious goings on and sinister cover ups to be utterly bizarre. They say far more about the people making them than anything else.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Does anyone seriously believe any part of the SEC, nevermind Glasgow Cathedral, has a "PR machine"? Everything I've seen indicates the "PR machine" consists of Fr Kelvin. And that's it. The SEC has the resources and personnel equivalent to perhaps a small CofE diocese.
If find the insinuations of dubious goings on and sinister cover ups to be utterly bizarre. They say far more about the people making them than anything else.
Rumour and gossip thrive on silence and secrecy.
Yes, apologies for the "PR machine" phrase - not the best one to use. But surely someone, somewhere can help out?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If it is true that she read more than intended as an intentional act, then perhaps she needs to front up a bit more: the cathedral is taking the flak for her as it stands. If it's an honest mistake well then "lessons have been learned."
I disagree with this. She was asked to perform in an act of Christian worship (which in-and-of-itself is an act of saying Christianity is superior to other religions). If she used that opportunity to subtly make it clear that her own profession as at odds with the whole basis of the service (by reading a few extra lines from the Koran), than I think this act of non-violent resistance to the religious powers-that-be is hilarious and should be applauded.
If it was just a mistake, then that's a bit of a let down in comparison.
She doesn't, in my view, need to explain anything. She's a Muslim, it would be pretty bloody odd if she didn't believe those extra lines.
Not all Muslims would have done it - but then not all Christians would have been so stupid as to ask a Muslim to read from their holy book in an act of Christian worship. I can think of many Christians would who have applauded this act of resistance if the boot had been on the other foot.
quote:
As yet we don't know either way but the longer it goes on without any further clarity, the more murkier it looks. It brings honour to no one.
I dunno, I don't think it is murky, I just think it is naive and stupid.
I'm sure no one would argue with the fact that Muslims know what they believe.
I'm not no sure we'd find the same kind of response if the boot were on the other foot. That is, if the opportunity were ever granted. others will know different but in interfaith work I have never come across a Christian Minister being invited to read from a bible in a mosque - and to talk about Jesus being the only way to heaven.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'm sure no one would argue with the fact that Muslims know what they believe.
Is there not some kind of obligation (or perhaps that is the wrong word) on Muslims to declare their belief in the uniqueness of Allah in public? Even if there isn't, then it is surely not beyond the bounds of imagination to think that a sincere Muslim might decide in good conscience that uttering a single phrase declaring the primacy of their religion in a Cathedral is honoring Allah.
quote:
I'm not no sure we'd find the same kind of response if the boot were on the other foot. That is, if the opportunity were ever granted. others will know different but in interfaith work I have never come across a Christian Minister being invited to read from a bible in a mosque - and to talk about Jesus being the only way to heaven.
But that's not really what happened here.
It is quite hard to imagine the reverse of this situation happening, in my view. We're imagining a Friday afternoon prayer in a Mosque. After the traditional prayers (which, presumably, the Christian Minister doesn't get involved with), there is a reading from the Koran.*
The preacher stands up and declares some truths about Islam. Then in the middle of talking about Jesus and what the Koran says about him, he gestures to his left and invites the local vicar up. He arrives with a bible and begins to read a carefully chosen verse which is no in any way offensive to Muslims and then sits down.
Please tell me if this has ever happened to you or anyone you know, because I find it a highly unlikely scenario.
*just to say that I've not been to a service in a mosque so I don't know the order of how they work. But I think the sermon is given after the prayers.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please tell me if this has ever happened to you or anyone you know, because I find it a highly unlikely scenario.
Not experienced it myself nor have I ever heard of it. I've eaten in the home of Muslim friends with no problems and they, mine.
I'd be intrigued to know what the reaction might be to a reading of "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except by me" by a Christian in a mosque setting.
Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Does anyone seriously believe any part of the SEC, nevermind Glasgow Cathedral, has a "PR machine"? Everything I've seen indicates the "PR machine" consists of Fr Kelvin. And that's it. The SEC has the resources and personnel equivalent to perhaps a small CofE diocese.
Fr. Kelvin is a long time blogger and not averse to the spotlight. This time, however, perhaps because Epiphany falls during a slow news week, something that would usually never have made it beyond the end of Great Western Road has hit the national press.
I'm a former member of St Mary's, and have friends who still worship there. There is a genuine and long-standing commitment in the congo to inter-faith dialogue. Whether this reading was the right or the wrong move, these Christians are genuine and prayerful in their work for relationship with other faiths. It's important work, and those who sit in judgement are not advancing the possibilities.
quote:
If find the insinuations of dubious goings on and sinister cover ups to be utterly bizarre. They say far more about the people making them than anything else.
Indeed.
[ 19. January 2017, 12:27: Message edited by: Mad Cat ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Oh for fuck's sake.
Oh no, someone disagrees with the Fount of All Anglican Reasonableness.
Yes, that's right. I'm really annoyed because someone doesn't agree with me. It happens so rarely, don't you know.
Dickhead.
I'm annoyed because of the whinging preciousness of some of the disagreement. Obviously one man on a cross isn't enough for the sins of the world; let's crucify a few more, just to make sure nothing 'bad' really happened at the service. Just in case. Wouldn't want to make the mistake of thinking the best of a situation when there are opportunities to chastise and punish - sorry, appropriately discipline someone, somewhere, somehow. You know, the kind of thing the Church does best.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
It's hell.
My arse may be kicked.
But this thread, and some of its accompanying pontificating nonsense, is enough to make me break out into a cold sweat.
Inhospitable.
"If they would never do it, why should we?"
Grindingly, boringly partisan.
It has brought out ALL the very worst that is my misfortune to read this afternoon.
And what is all this about a communion service needing to be ring-fenced and no doubt with attendant stewards in place to ensure only the true faith is allowed within sacred portals???
Unless and until christians can liberate communion services and positively throw those of other and no faiths into the Very Middle Of Them..........we are stuffed.
We may well end up in a place called heaven.
But i am far from believing that Christ inhabits that place.
[ 19. January 2017, 13:14: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm annoyed because of the whinging preciousness of some of the disagreement. Obviously one man on a cross isn't enough for the sins of the world; let's crucify a few more, just to make sure nothing 'bad' really happened at the service.
Oh stop it already with your self-righteousness.
I think it is inappropriate to have a Muslim reading the Koran in the middle of a Eucharist.
I've not said anything to the people involved directly (and wouldn't).
If you don't agree then fine. Fill your boots with custard and stop around the naive if that's what rocks your boat.
But I still retain the right to think that a Muslim reading from the Koran is inappropriate for a Eucharistic service. Deal.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
And what is all this about a communion service needing to be ring-fenced and no doubt with attendant stewards in place to ensure only the true faith is allowed within sacred portals???
It is an act of Christian worship declaring that Jesus is Lord. Why would you think it appropriate to have someone (even a friend) in the middle of that service declare that Jesus isn't Lord?
I have had many meals with Muslims and have even had occasion when I've prayed with them. I am honoured to call some Muslims friends.
This is nothing about hospitality and fundamentally something important about what we think we're doing in the Eucharist.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Oh for fuck's sake.
Oh no, someone disagrees with the Fount of All Anglican Reasonableness.
Yes, that's right. I'm really annoyed because someone doesn't agree with me. It happens so rarely, don't you know.
Dickhead.
I'm annoyed because of the whinging preciousness of some of the disagreement. Obviously one man on a cross isn't enough for the sins of the world; let's crucify a few more, just to make sure nothing 'bad' really happened at the service. Just in case. Wouldn't want to make the mistake of thinking the best of a situation when there are opportunities to chastise and punish - sorry, appropriately discipline someone, somewhere, somehow. You know, the kind of thing the Church does best.
Language Timothy!
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
I am absolutely convinced that there is neither certainty nor consensus concerning what happens in a communion service.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Right, yeah, we're uncertain about whether Jesus is Lord. Of course we are.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Much less..." what we think we are doing in it".....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Why not just invite everyone in and have them all tell us what they think about the fundamental points of our faith? Why have a service at all, instead lets all nod knowingly at the competing visions of people shouting at Speaker's Corner?
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Because that would be silly?
Nope.
My point (as you perfectly well know) is that across Christendom, we don't have a consensus about what constitutes "correct worship"; not in an ordinary act of public worship and certainly not in a mass/ eucharist/ communion service.
Inviting you (specifically but not exclusively) to pause and to stand back and consider an everso slightly more understanding approach is......yeah....it is, isn't it?
Silly.
Oh well.
You in your small corner...and i in mine.
(i'm sure that you remember that one)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Inviting you (specifically but not exclusively) to pause and to stand back and consider an everso slightly more understanding approach is......yeah....it is, isn't it?
You must have noticed that mr cheesy basically gets high on moral outrage. What you're proposing is like trying to pry the bottle away from an alcoholic.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Well yes!
Tbh, the only reason i even bothered to venture into such choppy waters....was because i could sense that even my patience was at an end....and i felt like saying so...
And....
.... i wonder, how many people who have no faith what so ever....occasionally tumble across Outraged Christians and think,
"Oh yes, I want to be JUST like Them!"....?
Yeah right. None.
Yawn, need to walk a dog, thanks though....
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Inviting you (specifically but not exclusively) to pause and to stand back and consider an everso slightly more understanding approach is......yeah....it is, isn't it?
You must have noticed that mr cheesy basically gets high on moral outrage. What you're proposing is like trying to pry the bottle away from an alcoholic.
Has he considered a career writing editorials for the Daily Mail?
Tubbs
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
What makes you think he doesn't already?
IJ
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Language Timothy!
Well, being such a 'self-righteous' person I obviously have to really force myself to type words like 'fuck' and 'dickhead'. I'll show this to some people who actually know me and give them a good laugh!
Mr Cheesy, you're being an ignorant shit-stirrer. Though I'll credit you with genuine intentions to be on the right side of the argument. But I'll bow to your ability to recognize self-righteousness when you see it. I mean, you must look into the mirror some time, mustn't you?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Language Timothy!
Well, being such a 'self-righteous' person I obviously have to really force myself to type words like 'fuck' and 'dickhead'. I'll show this to some people who actually know me and give them a good laugh!
I might laugh if I hear you use them in the pulpit!
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
OOOh! Handbags at dawn!
Self-righteous: - Having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior: (OED, emphasis mine)
Plenty of other definitions, but they all hinge on that one thing, that blazing certainty that I am right because.
Thing is, there are certainly posters here who have done that, but Mr. Cheesy ain't one of them. He stated his reasons right up front, within his first few posts, and stuck to them.
So here's a test for you. Review your own posts. Do they explain your criteria? No? Then welcome to the hall of mirrors.
All of this is completely independent of which side you are on. It's perfectly possible to be 100% right and a complete arse with it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Mr Cheesy, you're being an ignorant shit-stirrer. Though I'll credit you with genuine intentions to be on the right side of the argument.
1. I am not ignorant.
2. I am not a shit-stirrer
and 3. It is clear that I disagree with your assessment of this, but that doesn't mean that I'm stirring up trouble for the sake of it.
I happen to actually believe the crap we say during the Eucharist. If you don't, that's your problem - but then don't be surprised when people call you out.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Oh, right. Just because someone doesn't agree with your current knee spasm that must mean they're just pretending to be a Christian. Got it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Oh, right. Just because someone doesn't agree with your current knee spasm that must mean they're just pretending to be a Christian. Got it.
Riight, yeah, that's exactly what's happening.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The mainstream Protestant churches in Britain are pluralistic. Their liturgies serve to reinforce a sense of unity, but not to prevent 'heresies'. These churches often see themselves as a local Christian presence that works for community cohesion, not as institutions for promoting Christian orthodoxy against the claims of other religions.
The bishop getting cross about this particular event won't make much difference, but I'm curious about the abusive backlash from ordinary people. I suspect that many of the online threats are from non-churchgoers who have no particular interest in the Eucharist, but are simply Islamophobic. I have no proof of this, of course.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
This issue is being discussed on the BBC R4 programme "Sunday" at the moment. Sunday
One of the Queen's chaplains has resigned over the issue.
An imam has praised Christians for feeling strong enough to open the door to others.
[ 22. January 2017, 06:36: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Thing is, there are certainly posters here who have done that, but Mr. Cheesy ain't one of them. He stated his reasons right up front, within his first few posts, and stuck to them.
So here's a test for you. Review your own posts. Do they explain your criteria? No? Then welcome to the hall of mirrors.
Well, my feeling that mr cheesy is a self-righteous nitiwit arises because:
a. To take offence on behalf of a community of which you aren't a member, on the basis of an interpretation not shared by any of the participants of a service which you didn't attend - really is taking 'offenderati' to a new level;
b. He goes from 'I think this act is inappropriate at a Eucharist' to 'therefore you don't believe in the Eucharist';
c. Past form.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Thing is, there are certainly posters here who have done that, but Mr. Cheesy ain't one of them. He stated his reasons right up front, within his first few posts, and stuck to them.
So here's a test for you. Review your own posts. Do they explain your criteria? No? Then welcome to the hall of mirrors.
Well, my feeling that mr cheesy is a self-righteous nitiwit arises because:
a. To take offence on behalf of a community of which you aren't a member, on the basis of an interpretation not shared by any of the participants of a service which you didn't attend - really is taking 'offenderati' to a new level;
b. He goes from 'I think this act is inappropriate at a Eucharist' to 'therefore you don't believe in the Eucharist';
c. Past form.
So no one is entitles to comment or express an opinion on anything they are not directly involved in?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
It's more that if you weren't there, and your interpretation of what the service really implies doesn't tally with what the people who were there say, then the chance that you are Making Shit Up is quite high.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Thing is, there are certainly posters here who have done that, but Mr. Cheesy ain't one of them. He stated his reasons right up front, within his first few posts, and stuck to them.
So here's a test for you. Review your own posts. Do they explain your criteria? No? Then welcome to the hall of mirrors.
Well, my feeling that mr cheesy is a self-righteous nitiwit arises because:
a. To take offence on behalf of a community of which you aren't a member, on the basis of an interpretation not shared by any of the participants of a service which you didn't attend - really is taking 'offenderati' to a new level;
b. He goes from 'I think this act is inappropriate at a Eucharist' to 'therefore you don't believe in the Eucharist';
c. Past form.
Whether Mr. C. is a nitwit was beyond the remit of my post. None of those things would make Mr.C. self-righteous though, which is my distinctly limited point, with reasons as already given.
(though in passing, according to the Beeb this morning, several of the congregation are reported to have been moved to complain in private letters. But I don't think that was known before it was reported then).
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
So no one is entitles to comment or express an opinion on anything they are not directly involved in?
Good Lord! This board positively thrives on the uninformed and not-present spouting bollocks, so that the rest of us can all point and laugh.
Carry on, people, carry on.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Whether Mr. C. is a nitwit was beyond the remit of my post. None of those things would make Mr.C. self-righteous though, which is my distinctly limited point, with reasons as already given.
Well, OK. I'm prepared to find other words to describe mr cheesy ... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Ok everyone cut to the quick. The "extra" verses read in the cathedral - a genuine mistake or a deliberate choice?
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Ok everyone cut to the quick. The "extra" verses read in the cathedral - a genuine mistake or a deliberate choice?
Genuine mistake. If you usually read all the verses, it would easy to forget that this time you don't. Particularly if you're nervous.
TBH, I find life is easier and nicer if I assume that crap happens because people are forgetful or thoughtless rather than deliberately unkind or nasty.
Tubbs
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd be intrigued to know what the reaction might be to a reading of "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except by me" by a Christian in a mosque setting.
While it's not the same thing by any means,
I would have been happy to have that passage read at my (Muslim) father's funeral. He died 15 months after I wrote that blog post. There was a Requiem Mass. IN the event, the Gospel reading was Matthew 25: 31-45.
Inter-faith relations are not just an intellectual, theological challenge. They are people's lives. And deaths.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Ok everyone cut to the quick. The "extra" verses read in the cathedral - a genuine mistake or a deliberate choice?
Genuine mistake. If you usually read all the verses, it would easy to forget that this time you don't. Particularly if you're nervous.
TBH, I find life is easier and nicer if I assume that crap happens because people are forgetful or thoughtless rather than deliberately unkind or nasty.
Tubbs
I remember the story of a much loved former churchwarden from my first parish who was reading the Old Testament lesson at a solemn service and forget where he was supposed to stop. Someone had to tap him on the shoulder because he probably would not have stopped until he got to "Even so, come Lord Jesus". Which might have added a few minutes to the running order.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE]
I happen to actually believe the crap we say during the Eucharist. If you don't, that's your problem - but then don't be surprised when people call you out.
I've made no reference in this thread to what I do or don't believe about the liturgy of the Eucharist; so I would be very surprized indeed if anyone should call me out on it. The word 'crap', by the way, with reference to the Eucharist has never been - and never will be - used by me. If you think that in using it yourself you're somehow representing what you think my view of Communion is, you can save your breath.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It would be interesting if a kind of syncretism developed in which British Christianity absorbed some Muslim characteristics (not so likely the other way round) as a result of interfaith work.
In some contexts I really don't think that would be such a surprising thing to see at some point in the future.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I doubt it. All the Christians I know (of) who are involved in inter-faith work with Muslims are thoroughly orthodox. Syncretism is not on the agenda.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
True, it's not on the 'agenda', AFAIK.
I suppose interfaith contact works differently in different places. Where I live, it's Islam that seems to be the more energetic religion out of the two, and the churches have something to gain by becoming especially attractive to Muslims. The local church hasn't hosted readings from the Qu'ran, but Islamic music has been sung there, with everyone encouraged to join in.
We'll see what happens, of course. I don't know about the Church in Scotland, but the CofE is very broad. Its understanding of 'orthodoxy' could yet have room to expand and include any number of new ideas.
Returning to what happened at this particular service in Scotland, I've just seen on another website that the Qu'ran wasn't actually being read in English. I realise that Arabic is the preferred language, but was a translation provided for non-Arabic speakers in the congregation?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
My understanding was that an English translation was provided in the service leaflet, but that the reader continued past that point and included verses (without translation) which denied the deity of Christ.
This was discussed upthread, with some Shipmates suggesting that this was deliberate and others thinking that it was just a simple mistake.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We'll see what happens, of course. I don't know about the Church in Scotland, but the CofE is very broad. Its understanding of 'orthodoxy' could yet have room to expand and include any number of new ideas.
I cannot see how even a church with views as broad as the C of E on so many matters (and other churches in the Anglican Communion as well) has room for an opinion that denies the deity of Christ.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Gee D
Well, there are clergy who don't even believe in God, so....
More interestingly, it could be argued that the many Anglicans (and other Christians) who don't believe in the virgin birth are beginning to approach Islam's understanding Jesus. At the very least, it makes a rapprochement of some sort easier to imagine.
Baptist Trainfan
Thank you for reminding me of that.
We don't know if this young lady was in the habit of public reading, let alone reading during a religious service. Perhaps not. In any case, it would have been wise and helpful to prepare (or asked the mosque concerned to prepare) a sheet containing the agreed reading, rather than expecting her to read directly from the Qu'ran.
The irony is that without the internet (plus some mischievous tittle-tattle) this error wouldn't haven't been carried around the world, and none of us non-Arabic speakers would have been any the wiser. The Muslim lady and the clergyman would have been saved a great deal of embarrassment.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
but was a translation provided for non-Arabic speakers in the congregation?
Yes, it was on the order of service, as I understand it.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
but was a translation provided for non-Arabic speakers in the congregation?
Yes, it was on the order of service, as I understand it.
We had a couple of members of this congregation posting, who said that they normally had translations in the order of service when the choir sung an anthem in foreign. I've been in lots of churches that do this.
I did not understand whether they often had readings or sermons in foreign languages: that seems to me to be a rather different kettle of fish from singing an anthem in Icelandic during communion.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Gee D
Well, there are clergy who don't even believe in God, so....
There was that UCC minister but from a post in the last few days she has been defrocked. Who else? Jack Spong's so far in the past as not to count now.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Apparently about 2% of CofE clergy don't believe in God (i.e. they believe that God is a 'social construct'), while 16% are agnostic.
Another recent poll suggests that among self-confessed Christians in Britain, both churchgoers and nonchurchgoers, half don't believe that Jesus Christ was the Son God.
Of course, 'Christian' is a word with a range of meanings - which is what makes some kind of rapprochement with Islam possible, I suppose.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
I wonder if anyone remembers this goofball who claimed to be both Muslim and Christian...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
You say she's a goofball, but she's a minister in the mainline Episcopalian church, and her employers seem to be supportive. If it can happen in American Anglicanism, why not in the British version(s)??
Actually, I've heard that the Nation of Islam, a controversial American movement, sees itself as a bridge between Christianity and 'traditional' Islam. It's current leader, Louis Farrakhan, occasionally preaches in churches.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Do you know in what context he does that, and with what message?
(Actually, I have a partial answer from the NoI website: "He has been welcomed in a countless number of churches, sharing pulpits with Christian ministers from a variety of denominations, which has demonstrated the power of the unity of those who believe in the One God". I offer that without comment).
[ 25. January 2017, 16:57: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Actually, I've heard that the Nation of Islam, a controversial American movement, sees itself as a bridge between Christianity and 'traditional' Islam. It's current leader, Louis Farrakhan, occasionally preaches in churches. [/QB]
The NOI might be a bridge between Christianity and SOME form of Islam. I'm not sure I'd call it traditional Islam though. From their wiki page.
The stuff about Yakub seems especially heterodox. The NOI is roughly comparable to Mormonism in its relation to the theology of the mother faith.
[ 25. January 2017, 17:08: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
There is some kind of movement constituted of people who consider themselves to be Muslim followers of Jesus (mostly in the Islamic world), who are attempting to combine belief in Christianity with elements of Islamic culture.
I've seen a few articles about it, but it seems that no one really has figures on how prevalent or not it is.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Baptist Trainfan
I only know what he does from Youtube videos. The general context seems to be that the NOI does a lot to support and uplift people in struggling communities in Chicago. It's probably through this work that Farrakhan has met quite a few clergymen who are impressed at what his institution has achieved.
The radical social justice and liberationist side of Farrakhan's history seems to appeal to certain types of left-wing mainstream clergy, and they're liberal enough not to be phased by his movement's distinctive theology.
(Regarding the family, the NOI is obviously quite conservative; but so are traditional Muslims, on the whole.)
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Nah, she's a goofball. Her bishop wound up inhibiting her.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Really? Why is that?
I've read that the mainline American Episcopalians tolerate all sorts of theological diversity and try extremely hard to be inclusive, so she must have made a fatal error somewhere.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Nah, she's a goofball. Her bishop wound up inhibiting her.
And she has apparently since been defrocked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Holmes_Redding
I think that was an entirely appropriate response, but I'm not sure I'd call her a "goofball". It sounds like she had a profound spiritual experience and tried to reconcile it with her existing faith. I do think she's wrong, however - you can only be Christian and Muslim if you fudge one or both of them so profoundly as to be unrecognisable.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Apparently about 2% of CofE clergy don't believe in God (i.e. they believe that God is a 'social construct'), while 16% are agnostic.
Another recent poll suggests that among self-confessed Christians in Britain, both churchgoers and nonchurchgoers, half don't believe that Jesus Christ was the Son God.
Of course, 'Christian' is a word with a range of meanings - which is what makes some kind of rapprochement with Islam possible, I suppose.
Both very odd sounding polls - I wonder what the methodology was???? Let's assume that the polls have some validity for Britain, I'd be surprised if the results would be replicatd here.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Isn't 2% well below the level at which we tend to discount survey results as reflecting the people taking the piss out of the survey questions? Usually there's a about 10% of the population that will agree to any proposition no matter how ridiculous.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I didn't think it was all that contentious to say that some clergy are atheists. It's been a topic for debate for a long time. In the USA there's a whole support network for those who remain in their posts and keep their beliefs hidden.
I won't post links since this is Hell, not Purg, and it's off-topic anyway. The point is that our churches are pluralistic, and in some parts of the country, this could well mean that different faith groups begin to worship together as well as simply having polite conversations with each other. Who knows?
In Berlin they're building a 'House of One', a structure in which Christians, Jews and Muslims will worship separately, but clearly with a shared ethos. The name itself suggests some shared theological thinking.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Atheist/agnostic priests sound very odd to me, holding an office (and presumably being paid for it) while not believing in the basis for that office. Still, it is consistent with those bishops who announced their future swim of the Tiber but took pay for the next couple of months from the C of E.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Oh, I'm sure there exist clergy who have lost their faith and feel trapped or somehow feel they should be able to continue in post. What I doubt is any sense that this is expected or widely tolerated within any major British Christian denomination. The former Bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway, is a classic example - only revealing the full extent of his difficulties after he retired.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Nah, she's a goofball. Her bishop wound up inhibiting her.
And she has apparently since been defrocked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Holmes_Redding
I think that was an entirely appropriate response, but I'm not sure I'd call her a "goofball". It sounds like she had a profound spiritual experience and tried to reconcile it with her existing faith. I do think she's wrong, however - you can only be Christian and Muslim if you fudge one or both of them so profoundly as to be unrecognisable.
Well, presumably she had enough of a theological education to understand the distinctness and opposition of Muslim and Christian truth claims. In fact, anyone with the most elementary understanding of logic will instantly see that the two religions are not compatible in the way she thinks they are. The Christian belief that Jesus is God incarnate and the Muslim belief that Jesus is purely human cannot be made to harmonize.
And she seems not to have seen fit to take her bishop into confidence about the matter, which is either disobedient or dumb. So I stand by "goofball."
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Nazir-Ali is at is again: go to the GAFCON UK website (we should always attempt to understand our enemy) and you will find his "critique" of the Bishops' Report - you may find it useful to have a bowl or motion-discomfort bag handy.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
(we should always attempt to understand our enemy)
Problem is, after doing that I really feel the need to take a shower.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0