Thread: World faiths' scriptures in Christian worship Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030413
Posted by Josiah Crawley (# 18481) on :
 
At the Cathedral of St John the Divine, Upper Eastside NY, last Sunday in the big St Francis Day
Eucharist after the OT reading and before the Gospel there was a reading from the Quran, about creation.

It seemed to me good to include this but I wondered what others thought.

Is it getting more common now to include non Christian world faiths scriptures in Christian liturgy? What are your thoughts.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The Apostle Paul was quite happy to include quotes from non-Jewish philosophers and poets in his speeches and letters. I don't know if it's becoming more common, but it's a practice with significant history.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Apostle Paul was quite happy to include quotes from non-Jewish philosophers and poets in his speeches and letters. I don't know if it's becoming more common, but it's a practice with significant history.
Paul did so in order to make a point about Christ. It was in the context of addressing - through preaching or proclamation - some of the issues of the day.

It doesn't look like that in this instance - it seems as if the reading was treated as being of equal value to those from the bible and therefore not a good thing at all.

[ 08. October 2015, 04:39: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Well, it's difficult to know from what's been posted what status of authority the reading was given. Placing it between the OT and Gospel readings would (in many places) give it a status similar to the Epistle (especially if the congregation go and say "the word of the Lord" afterwards as many might do out of habit). However, if it was preceded by a statement making it clear that this was not a reading from Scripture and was included for a specific purpose but was not recognised as authoritative then that would be different.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Oh, and of course, the reading would have been followed by a sermon at some point. So, it could be in the context of addressing - through preaching or proclamation - some of the issues of the day.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I really think you have to take into account the effect such a reading will have on those listening. Is it going to scandalize, freak out, or mislead one of "the least of these my brothers"? If so, don't do it. It's that principle Paul brought up using the example of food sacrificed to idols. If it makes my brother or sister stumble, I need to avoid it instead of asserting my rights, wishes, or creativity.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
I find myself in cautious and uncharacteristic [Biased] agreement with ExclamationMark. If we are losing the liturgical and theological distinctiveness of the Judaeo-Christian scriptural witness and the unique event to which Christianity traditionally believes that witness testifies, then we are in deep syncretistic doodoos.

Context of course is everything. This Sunday night I will be hosting a liturgy for Amnesty International, recognizing the plight of refugees, and inviting those who care of all faiths and none to participate in a ritual of concern. I will use Judaeo-Christian resources, atheistic resources, other faith resources. There will be no affirmation of Christian faith, but a multi-hoped affirmation of energy. Those who participate will I hope go back to their traditions energised for the fight.

But it is not pretending to be a liturgy affirming the centrality of the Cross. That will come after I return to my tradition, energised by shared aims and the knowledge that my God is an inclusive God. But it will come, because it is "in the Cross of Christ I glory", and more importantly "in the Cross of Christ I glory", and "in the cross of Christ I glory."
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I agree with Exclamation Mark. This was at the Eucharist, which proclaim's the death of Jesus until he comes again. It is difficult to imagine how inserting into the liturgy a reading from a book sacred to a religion that denies Christianity and proclaims itself as a replacement to it, can be anything other than misleading, a confusing nod towards syncretism and an endorsement of the widespread belief that one religion is as good as any other.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I've often used scriptures from other faiths.

Dom Bede Griffiths used the Vedas as the first reading at masses in his ashram.
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree with Exclamation Mark. This was at the Eucharist, which proclaim's the death of Jesus until he comes again. It is difficult to imagine how inserting into the liturgy a reading from a book sacred to a religion that denies Christianity and proclaims itself as a replacement to it, can be anything other than misleading, a confusing nod towards syncretism and an endorsement of the widespread belief that one religion is as good as any other.
I think this is the key point. The Vedas and pre-Christian Jewish and Greek texts might be thought of as in some ('logos spermatikos') way pointing to Christianity, but the Koran expilcitly contradicts our faith.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Does anyone know what kind of service it was, when in the service the Quran reading occurred, and in what context (how was it introduced, was there a liturgical response to it, how was it listed in the service leaflet, was any explanation of it and the reason for using it given later in the service, etc.)

Furthermore, was it to any degree an Interfaith service? Did it have the participation of ministers of other faiths?
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Does anyone know what kind of service it was, when in the service the Quran reading occurred, and in what context (how was it introduced, was there a liturgical response to it, how was it listed in the service leaflet, was any explanation of it and the reason for using it given later in the service, etc.)

Furthermore, was it to any degree an Interfaith service? Did it have the participation of ministers of other faiths?
The OP was quite clear: "the big St Francis Day
Eucharist after the OT reading and before the Gospel there was a reading from the Quran, about creation."
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Actually that doesn't really answer many of the questions. Almost certainly not an inter-faith event if a Eucharistic service. But, what words were said in relation to the reading? Even, what were the OT and Gospel that were read?

St Francis day, I can see that strongly focussed on care for creation. Does the Koranic creation account come across much more strongly about creation care than the Judeo-Christian accounts?

We needed an MWer there to give us the details ....
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
There are no circumstances when another religion's sacred text should be read out in a Christian service, especially in a Eucharist. (I'm not a fan of "inter-faith worship", but I suppose in such contexts it would be acceptable. A Eucharist cannot be inter-faith, however.)

Yes, there are all the objections stated upthread. More importantly, however, it is fantastically rude to Muslims to read the Koran in a Christian service. It is not our text: it is theirs. By reading it in the context of Christian worship, we would be appropriating it and claiming it as supporting our faith. That is misleading from the point of Christian doctrine and rude towards Islam.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The best Google is giving me is news reports on the animal procession and blessing that was also part off the service. So, a long way from being a traditional solemn Eucharist, whatever texts were read.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
This was a celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the first part of which is called the Liturgy of the Word for a reason. Such a practice makes that reason horribly unclear to those present.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
There are no circumstances when another religion's sacred text should be read out in a Christian service
None at all? Not even when that text expresses divine truth better than our own? And, where do you draw the line? Remembrance Day services have almost always included the reading of war poets, expressing profound truth about the sacrifice and horror of war. If those fail to express Christian hope, do they count as non-Christian texts?

Was I a dreadful person when at one point last year I quoted Queen in a sermon? Or, as I've done on two occasions when given Matthew 5, Monty Python?

quote:
It is not our text: it is theirs. By reading it in the context of Christian worship, we would be appropriating it and claiming it as supporting our faith.
If the message of the texts is something that is common to both faiths, does it make a difference? If we are uniting on at least one point in common, is that not a good thing?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
This was a celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the first part of which is called the Liturgy of the Word for a reason. Such a practice makes that reason horribly unclear to those present.
But, as I find I'm frequently told, the Word isn't the Bible it's Christ. Even Evangelicals like myself don't preach the Bible, we preach Christ. If putting a reading in from a non-Biblical text gives people a jolt to realise that, then in itself that's done a good thing.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Basilica: More importantly, however, it is fantastically rude to Muslims to read the Koran in a Christian service.
This would be the most important hesitation for me too.

I'm from an alt.worship context, so we don't really have a formal setting for our readings. We might not even have them in a service. It is very normal for us to draw from various sources: Jewish mystics, Humanist philosophers ... Sometimes the Qu'ran also comes into that, if we feel that it's interesting to consider what Muslims may have to say on a certain subject.

It is important to me that this is done with respect to Islam. What probably helps is that we don't really have a "they deny our faith" mindset.
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


Was I a dreadful person when at one point last year I quoted Queen in a sermon? Or, as I've done on two occasions when given Matthew 5, Monty Python?

I quote all kinds of things in sermons (though I've never used Monty Python yet... intrigued!). Pope Francis quoted the Sufi mystic Ali al-Khawas in his last encyclical.

But there's a big difference between quoting something in a homily, and proclaiming it in the place that your tradition of worship reserves for the proclamation of Sacred Scripture. Subverting the structure makes a statement which is simply false for Christians: the Quran (much as it may contain "elements of truth and sanctification"*) is not the inspired Word of God.

--
*Lumen Gentium 8.2
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
We've had the account of the annunciation from the Koran at our Carol service a couple of times. It was read both in Arabic and in English translation by a one of the local Muslim leaders, and he was accompanied by a number of members of his mosque.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
There are no circumstances when another religion's sacred text should be read out in a Christian service
None at all? Not even when that text expresses divine truth better than our own? And, where do you draw the line? Remembrance Day services have almost always included the reading of war poets, expressing profound truth about the sacrifice and horror of war. If those fail to express Christian hope, do they count as non-Christian texts?

Was I a dreadful person when at one point last year I quoted Queen in a sermon? Or, as I've done on two occasions when given Matthew 5, Monty Python?


I deliberately referred to "another religion's sacred text", not non-Christian texts. Monty Python is fine; the Qur'an is not.

quote:
quote:
It is not our text: it is theirs. By reading it in the context of Christian worship, we would be appropriating it and claiming it as supporting our faith.
If the message of the texts is something that is common to both faiths, does it make a difference? If we are uniting on at least one point in common, is that not a good thing?
Perhaps, if it was done with the consent of a Muslim community, in the context of an inter-faith service. All this is doing is appropriating another religion's texts to make your own point. When you use a text in worship, you are giving it a context and connotations and you have to be sympathetic to the text and to the community to which it belongs.

In an academic article, or a church newsletter, or maybe even a homily, it would be appropriate. But not reading it out as if it were a text from the Bible.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
This was a celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the first part of which is called the Liturgy of the Word for a reason. Such a practice makes that reason horribly unclear to those present.
But, as I find I'm frequently told, the Word isn't the Bible it's Christ. Even Evangelicals like myself don't preach the Bible, we preach Christ. If putting a reading in from a non-Biblical text gives people a jolt to realise that, then in itself that's done a good thing.
The term Word has more than meaning in a Christian context (much like the word saint). The context in which it is used in the name of the Liturgy of the Word is a scriptural one, and that is the focus of the liturgy at that point.
 
Posted by Josiah Crawley (# 18481) on :
 
Wow! I didn't think my post would get so much interest! Thanks for those comments and thoughts.

I've got in front of me the order of service from the cathedral of Saint John the Divine.

Here is a quote from Dean Kowalski in the introduction to the liturgy booklet:

"Each year the Earth Mass and Blessing of the Animals is placed under the roof of this Cathedral as a way of re-convening a conversation about stewardship of creation. There are many ways - through liturgies, art and other forms of discourse - we endeavor to call people together across faiths and cultures to the kind of advocacy that builds more just societies."

I guess its in that spirit the reading from the Quran in the liturgy should be understand.

Now that reading came After a reading from the book of Genesis (1.20-25)

It was headed 'A Reading from the Quran' (Sura ya-Sin 36: 81-83). Like the first reading from Genesis the reading ended with the Lector saying
"Hear what the Spirit is saying to God's people"
and all said "Thanks be to God"

Then there was the reading of the Holy Gospel.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
I quote all kinds of things in sermons (though I've never used Monty Python yet... intrigued!).
Well, the Gospel was the Beattitudes. And, "Blessed are the cheesemakers" was just asking to be quoted. More seriously, "blessed are the Meek! That's nice". I wanted to make the point that we can so easily turn the Beattitudes into something "nice", whereas they're a challenge to live a very difficult life following Christ, and form an introduction to the Sermon on the Mount which is also a challenging passage and not as "nice" as often made out. If it was a call to be "nice" then there wouldn't be that part about being persecuted for following Christ.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
I deliberately referred to "another religion's sacred text", not non-Christian texts. Monty Python is fine; the Qur'an is not.
Though, some people take their Monty Python very seriously. It even makes an entry into sacred-texts.com - although I would say that Life of Brian deserves that honour ahead of Holy Grail if there was to be just one entry.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josiah Crawley:
Here is a quote from Dean Kowalski in the introduction to the liturgy booklet:

"Each year the Earth Mass and Blessing of the Animals is placed under the roof of this Cathedral as a way of re-convening a conversation about stewardship of creation. There are many ways - through liturgies, art and other forms of discourse - we endeavor to call people together across faiths and cultures to the kind of advocacy that builds more just societies."

I guess its in that spirit the reading from the Quran in the liturgy should be understand.
It clearly isn't your average Eucharist. But, even without that introductory text that's fairly obvious - there are times when it seems that the blessing of the animals is taking centre stage, it's certainly about the only thing that most people remark upon in the media. It has a bit of a Circus feel to it, with the press present to get their pictures of robed priests and choristers with the llama or pig, but not a word about the sermon appearing in the report.

Now, I know some people will raise their hands in horror at the mere thought of a Eucharistic service being used as a circus show. I have my sympathies with that view, but also I've no personal problems with that providing the service isn't just a circus show.

Being particularly open to the richness other cultures and faiths can bring to a common endeavour within the context of an occasional act of Christian worship also strikes me as something good - although I would be uncomfortable if that was the weekly fare.

quote:

Now that reading came After a reading from the book of Genesis (1.20-25)

It was headed 'A Reading from the Quran' (Sura ya-Sin 36: 81-83). Like the first reading from Genesis the reading ended with the Lector saying
"Hear what the Spirit is saying to God's people"
and all said "Thanks be to God"

Then there was the reading of the Holy Gospel.
If, as appears, there was no distinction made between the reading from Genesis and the reading from the Quran then something does seem amiss. Personally, if it was appropriate to include a reading from something other than the Bible I would preface it a bit more clearly - something about hearing Gods call for care of creation from our own faith tradition and also from the faith tradition of another faith where we agree on this point.

I like "Hear what the Spirit is saying to God's people", because the Spirit can speak through many ways and not just the words of the Bible. Are those the regular words to conclude a reading at St Johns? Or were they specifically chosen for this occasion?
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
No problems with the blessing of the animals and the eucharist sharing the same event, but the former belongs before the Peace ...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
but the Koran expilcitly contradicts our faith.
And many parts of the Old and New Testaments contradict each other.
 
Posted by Josiah Crawley (# 18481) on :
 
I guess this event at St John the Divine encourages us to think about other times and places where it could be appropriate to consider incorporating world faiths' scriptures in Christian worship (subject to some of the safeguards people have indicated).

Someone has already mentioned a Christmas carol service.

An act of worship on the theme of World Peace could be another opportunity.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Well, if the reading was in English translation rather than Arabic, the folks at St. John the Divine can always cop out by saying the reading technically wasn't from the actual Quran, and they'd be right, too. [Biased]

[ 09. October 2015, 19:25: Message edited by: stonespring ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
If you attend a church with highly intellectual, right-on priests I suppose you can expect this sort of thing sometimes. Individuals know their reasons for choosing a particular church, and the trade-off is letting some things slide.

It would be more interesting if the mosque down the road were known to do readings from the Bible occasionally. The Nation of Islam does this, to judge from videos of Louis Farrakhan, but I can't imagine the average imam dipping into the gospels every now and then, certainly not during the most significant religious rituals. But with religion you never know.
 
Posted by Josiah Crawley (# 18481) on :
 
If the spirit is speaking beyond the words in the Christian Bible then I think its good in worship and teaching to draw this out.

So, then, maybe more clergy need to be right on with this [Smile]

I guess Jane or John Doe presented with readings from different faiths' scriptures would have no objection to this enrichment from time to time.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josiah Crawley:
If the spirit is speaking beyond the words in the Christian Bible then I think its good in worship and teaching to draw this out.

So, then, maybe more clergy need to be right on with this [Smile]

I guess Jane or John Doe presented with readings from different faiths' scriptures would have no objection to this enrichment from time to time.
"If" is a big question. Best to approach it as Paul does - not with uncritical inclusion - but with robust debate and in context of what Christ says.

You can be so "right on" that you're actually "far off." It's probably a desire to seem radical and edgy but it's about as radical as putting full fat milk into a skinny latte.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"If" is a big question.
Actually, that "if" isn't a big question at all. The Spirit does speak beyond the words in the Christian Bible. It's his job. "the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things ... I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth." (John 14:26, 16:12-13).

The big question is how we discern whether we're listening to the Spirit of God or some other spirit.
 
Posted by Josiah Crawley (# 18481) on :
 
Thanks for that, Alan.

I found that a very helpful insight on this.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Josiah Crawley (# 18481) on :
 
Thanks for that, Alan.

I found that a very helpful insight on this.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
I often find it helpful to turn things around and think about whether the local Jewish or Muslim community would similarly use a Christian text in a service, whether regular or special, and I usually think not.

I've walked out of an Episcopal parish church on a Sunday morning when I looked at the leaflet to find out it would be a Rosh Hashanah liturgy of some sort. Doubting the synagogue would be doing a Holy Eucharist, I left and made it to the Roman Catholic parish where the readings of the day were proclaimed and preached.

Generally I think it's best to major in what we're best at, our own tradition. Not that others shouldn't be looked at in classes or personal study, but when it's time for the rites of Holy Church, I'd rather stick to the texts given us by Holy Church.

[ 11. October 2015, 03:25: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Oblatus wrote:

quote:
I've walked out of an Episcopal parish church on a Sunday morning when I looked at the leaflet to find out it would be a Rosh Hashanah liturgy of some sort. Doubting the synagogue would be doing a Holy Eucharist, I left and made it to the Roman Catholic parish where the readings of the day were proclaimed and preached.
So the issue is tit-for-tat for you? In other words, if a synagogue DID decide to host a Holy Eucharist, then the Rosh Hashanah liturgy would be okay?

Personally, I would think the idea of appropriating non-Christian scriptures and ceremonies is that you see something valuable in them. Not that you're trying to repay the open-ness of other faiths.

When I attended a Unitarian service in Canada a few weeks back, the minister approvingly quoted Pope Francis at a fairly prominent place in his sermon on the Syrian refugee crisis, even displaying a photo of the Pope on the wall. I gotta say, my first instinct was not to say "Hey, I don't think the Pope would quote and display photos of Emerson during HIS sermons!"

I'm not saying everyone has to be as syncretic as the Unitarians are, just that, in deciding what degree of syncretism to tolerate, the criteria should be the value of the appropriated traditions to your own faith. Not some sort of resentful "Well, if they're not gonna honour us, why should we honour them?" attitude.

[ 11. October 2015, 05:45: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I wouldn't want (say) the Qu'ran read as if it had equal status with the Bible, followed by "This is the Word of the Lord". But if one was preaching on a subject such as the Creation or even the birth of Christ, such a reading could provide an interesting contrast with the Christian one. I quite often use secular texts or poems to highlight the theme of our worship, and this would be no different.

Incidentally, we do have quite a good relationship with our local Mosque. Some years ago they invited us to observe lunchtime prayers (not on a Friday though) and we put on a demonstration service for them, complete with hymns, responsive psalm, Bible readings etc. We told them that they weren't expected to join in the responses but, much to our surprise, they did!

P.S. I've quoted from both Popes Francis and Benedict in my sermons!

[ 11. October 2015, 07:34: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I wouldn't want (say) the Qu'ran read as if it had equal status with the Bible, followed by "This is the Word of the Lord". But if one was preaching on a subject such as the Creation or even the birth of Christ, such a reading could provide an interesting contrast with the Christian one. I quite often use secular texts or poems to highlight the theme of our worship, and this would be no different.
Quoted in a sermon, yes, absolutely appropriate and admirable. Read out as a lesson, no.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Oblatus wrote:

quote:
I've walked out of an Episcopal parish church on a Sunday morning when I looked at the leaflet to find out it would be a Rosh Hashanah liturgy of some sort. Doubting the synagogue would be doing a Holy Eucharist, I left and made it to the Roman Catholic parish where the readings of the day were proclaimed and preached.
So the issue is tit-for-tat for you? In other words, if a synagogue DID decide to host a Holy Eucharist, then the Rosh Hashanah liturgy would be okay?
No, it wouldn't. I'd find both appropriations, um, inappropriate. My problem was with the fact that a main Sunday service in a parish church was not even a liturgy of the Episcopal Church. My thoughts about the synagogue were more like, "This service from another religion would be unthinkable in the synagogue, or mosque, or Eastern Orthodox church; why do we think it's just fine here?" Do it as part of a class on Jewish liturgy, not as the main Sunday service of the parish.

[ 11. October 2015, 13:34: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


Incidentally, we do have quite a good relationship with our local Mosque. Some years ago they invited us to observe lunchtime prayers (not on a Friday though) and we put on a demonstration service for them, complete with hymns, responsive psalm, Bible readings etc. We told them that they weren't expected to join in the responses but, much to our surprise, they did!
The interesting question is whether they would have approved if you'd started preaching from the Quran as a part of your Christian service. Maybe you could ask them about this at your next interfaith meeting, or whenever.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Is it any of their business? I mean, the Koran is in the public domain. If Muslims started preaching from the New Testament I might say 'hang on, I don't think you're using that properly, i don't think you get the context' or whatever, but I don't think I'd say I disapproved as such.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


Incidentally, we do have quite a good relationship with our local Mosque. Some years ago they invited us to observe lunchtime prayers (not on a Friday though) and we put on a demonstration service for them, complete with hymns, responsive psalm, Bible readings etc. We told them that they weren't expected to join in the responses but, much to our surprise, they did!
The interesting question is whether they would have approved if you'd started preaching from the Quran as a part of your Christian service.
The thought never entered our mind - nor theirs!
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Is it any of their business? I mean, the Koran is in the public domain. If Muslims started preaching from the New Testament I might say 'hang on, I don't think you're using that properly, i don't think you get the context' or whatever, but I don't think I'd say I disapproved as such.
Well, the main reason why the Quran would be of interest to clergymen is precisely because there are still are people (i.e. Muslims) who believe it to be an inspired and sacred work. Similarly, atheist artists and novelists are still fascinated by the Bible because it retains a religious hold on Christians in Western culture.

IOW, these texts may have a life beyond that invested in them by their religious adherents, but the 'life beyond' largely relies upon the prevalence of that religious power. (Dead religions have a certain cultural appeal, but not to the same extent, ISTM).

That being the case, I do think we all have a right to approve or disapprove of what other people are doing with our holy texts. Whether atheist novelists or liberal Episcopalians etc. should care is another matter. But the latter surely see themselves as caring, considerate people, so they should give it some thought.

[ 11. October 2015, 21:15: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I'm sorry, I'm probably very dense but I don't really understand what you mean. But no matter, as I shan't pursue it further.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
The point is, I do think it's 'their business'. Similarly, when atheists use the Bible for their own ends that feels rather like 'my business'.

But I may be alone in that. No matter. As you were.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
You can approve or disapprove basically anything, as you choose. How could anyone stop you? The real question is, can you (may you) enforce your disapproval.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Now that reading came After a reading from the book of Genesis (1.20-25)

It was headed 'A Reading from the Quran' (Sura ya-Sin 36: 81-83). Like the first reading from Genesis the reading ended with the Lector saying
"Hear what the Spirit is saying to God's people"
and all said "Thanks be to God"

Then there was the reading of the Holy Gospel.
I hate to sound all Fundamentalist but surely we draw the line somewhere. That's outrageous blasphemy-or did I miss the bit where the Triune God speaks through the Quran? Nope, nope nope. I'd be happy to attend an interfaith service and no problems with hearing the Quran read there but no way I'd respond "Thanks be to God" at the end. If it was relevant I've got no issues with reading the Quran in a Christian service BUT reading it as scripture, that's a betrayal of Christ IMO.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I believe the Spirit spoke to me through The Upanishads when I was 19.

The reading above did NOT end with 'This is the word of the Lord'
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josiah Crawley:
Wow! I didn't think my post would get so much interest! Thanks for those comments and thoughts.

I've got in front of me the order of service from the cathedral of Saint John the Divine.

Here is a quote from Dean Kowalski in the introduction to the liturgy booklet:

"Each year the Earth Mass and Blessing of the Animals is placed under the roof of this Cathedral as a way of re-convening a conversation about stewardship of creation. There are many ways - through liturgies, art and other forms of discourse - we endeavor to call people together across faiths and cultures to the kind of advocacy that builds more just societies."
Building a more just society would be a good thing, but I don't think Christian churches should be making it a higher priority than proclaiming the Gospel.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Are they in conflict?
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

Building a more just society would be a good thing, but I don't think Christian churches should be making it a higher priority than proclaiming the Gospel.
Good to have Christian relative indifference to Justice as Fairness (see Rawls) confirmed.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Hosting

We will of course keep the tone of debate constructive. Because that's what we do.

/Hosting
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
What I left out was my curiosity why, given the amazing amount of specifically Christian literature, from the Fathers onward, non-Christian readings would be chosen, much as I might want to recommend agnostic and even atheist authors who might appeal to me.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Are they in conflict?
No, but the Social Gospel is only half the picture.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
But still half.

Are you going to criticise another liturgy for omitting it?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
That's not the point. The point is that the Dean of SJD decided that the Social Gospel is so important that his concern for the environment trumped the liturgy of the Church and compromised its proclamation of the Good News.

And yes, it upsets me just as much to hear Christians say that the commandments to care for others really only apply to their spiritual needs and not their physical ones.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Hang on ... we suddenly seem to have got onto a completely different topic. It's one which is worth debating (indeed, it causes tension with my own congregation). But it's surely not what the OP was asking.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I think the triune God can speak to Christians through the Quran, as can other texts - but I don't think that makes it suitable for corporate Christian worship and especially not the Eucharist.

All Christians have differing opinions on the Bible and how they use it, but it is universally considered to be the holy text of Christianity. There's unity there, in some form at least. Unity in Christ is the basis of the Eucharist and this needs to be reflected in the readings.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Oblatus wrote:

quote:
I've walked out of an Episcopal parish church on a Sunday morning when I looked at the leaflet to find out it would be a Rosh Hashanah liturgy of some sort. Doubting the synagogue would be doing a Holy Eucharist, I left and made it to the Roman Catholic parish where the readings of the day were proclaimed and preached.
So the issue is tit-for-tat for you? In other words, if a synagogue DID decide to host a Holy Eucharist, then the Rosh Hashanah liturgy would be okay?
No, it wouldn't. I'd find both appropriations, um, inappropriate. My problem was with the fact that a main Sunday service in a parish church was not even a liturgy of the Episcopal Church. My thoughts about the synagogue were more like, "This service from another religion would be unthinkable in the synagogue, or mosque, or Eastern Orthodox church; why do we think it's just fine here?" Do it as part of a class on Jewish liturgy, not as the main Sunday service of the parish.
Okay, if your point was that cross-sectional services are not the way things are normally done in most faiths, that's a better point than what I had assumed with my tit-for-tat interpretation.

I still think that, if a particular religious group reaches the conclusion that appropriating other faiths' writings or rituals fits their needs, they should go ahead and do it, regardless of what any other group does.

[ 13. October 2015, 06:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
As it is not part of my background, I was rather taken aback a couple of weeks ago to hear a bible reading from the Book of Wisdom.

I'm thinking I might have a similar reaction to hearing the Koran.

It doesn't really fit within the general understanding of "Christian scriptures" and doesn't really fit many of our ideas of how God speaks, I guess. Or at least not the ones I've grown up with.

Although I would have been very offended in my younger days, I don't know what I would think now - other than that these things need a lot of context and understanding, so the chances of a random reading by a Christian of another sacred text is unlikely to be faithful to another faith.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Okay, if your point was that cross-sectional services are not the way things are normally done in most faiths, that's a better point than what I had assumed with my tit-for-tat interpretation.

I still think that, if a particular religious group reaches the conclusion that appropriating other faiths' writings or rituals fits their needs, they should go ahead and do it, regardless of what any other group does.
Of course, there are certain religious groups who make a point of taking bits-and-pieces from any scriptures they can get their hands on. I'm thinking of Gandhi's Hinduism, for example. Also I remember entering a Quaker meeting house and seeing the [apparent] veneration of a female goddess.

I think the problem is more pronounced when one is not a unitarian, Quaker etc but are trying to bring in other scriptures to a religious worship service where the rules either do not state that this is allowed or specifically state that it is not allowed. I'm not sure of the exact status of other scriptures in the EC, but I'm doubting that they are supposed to be read on the same status as the gospels, for example.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As it is not part of my background, I was rather taken aback a couple of weeks ago to hear a bible reading from the Book of Wisdom.

I'm thinking I might have a similar reaction to hearing the Koran.

It doesn't really fit within the general understanding of "Christian scriptures" and doesn't really fit many of our ideas of how God speaks, I guess. Or at least not the ones I've grown up with....
If you mean the Wisdom of Solomon, it is the the Apocrypha, one of the deuterocanonical books. It is part of the Greek version of the Old Testament but not the Hebrew one. The CofE lectionary includes them, but for those that don't like them or only have a bible that omits them, provides an alternative reading from the Hebrew part of the Old Testament.

The Koran though is the sacred book of the Moslem faith, which is another religion. That religion claims Mohammed wrote it under the direct inspiration of God. As Christians, we do not accept that claim.

So there is no similarity between reading from the Wisdom of Solomon and reading from the Koran in public Christian worship.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If you mean the Wisdom of Solomon, it is the the Apocrypha, one of the deuterocanonical books. It is part of the Greek version of the Old Testament but not the Hebrew one. The CofE lectionary includes them, but for those that don't like them or only have a bible that omits them, provides an alternative reading from the Hebrew part of the Old Testament.
I know what it is, I have never heard it read in church before. In my background, that would not be considered to be part of the biblical canon, but YMMV.

quote:
The Koran though is the sacred book of the Moslem faith, which is another religion. That religion claims Mohammed wrote it under the direct inspiration of God. As Christians, we do not accept that claim.
As I said, that is not a distinction with a difference from the point of view of my background.

quote:
So there is no similarity between reading from the Wisdom of Solomon and reading from the Koran in public Christian worship.
Well, y'know. Whatever.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As it is not part of my background, I was rather taken aback a couple of weeks ago to hear a bible reading from the Book of Wisdom.

I'm thinking I might have a similar reaction to hearing the Koran.

It doesn't really fit within the general understanding of "Christian scriptures" and doesn't really fit many of our ideas of how God speaks, I guess. Or at least not the ones I've grown up with.

Although I would have been very offended in my younger days, I don't know what I would think now - other than that these things need a lot of context and understanding, so the chances of a random reading by a Christian of another sacred text is unlikely to be faithful to another faith.
It's hard to argue that there is an exact analogy between the Qur'an and the Wisdom of Solomon. One unambiguously stands in the Christian tradition, even if not quite in your part of that tradition, and the other unambiguously denies the Christian tradition.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I thought Wisdom of Solomon stood in the Jewish tradition?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Building a more just society would be a good thing, but I don't think Christian churches should be making it a higher priority than proclaiming the Gospel.
I thought the gospel was largely about justice - thy kingdom come...on earth etc.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Building a more just society would be a good thing, but I don't think Christian churches should be making it a higher priority than proclaiming the Gospel.
I thought the gospel was largely about justice - thy kingdom come...on earth etc.
A large part of the Gospel is about justice. All the more reason to choose such a reading from one of the Gospels rather than going elsewhere and implicitly saying thereby that this is not a theme which is adequately treated in Christian scripture.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
It's hard to argue that there is an exact analogy between the Qur'an and the Wisdom of Solomon. One unambiguously stands in the Christian tradition, even if not quite in your part of that tradition, and the other unambiguously denies the Christian tradition.
I'm not arguing, I'm telling you how it felt for me, with a background that did not allow that the Book of Wisdom was any more part of the biblical canon than the Koran. This isn't up for debate, this is how felt.

If you want a debate (although I've no idea what you think there is to debate here), why don't you start a discussion in Purgatory?
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Hosting Harder

The rule is: play the ball not the player

The other rule is: junior hosting is frowned upon and may make statues (forbidden under certain religious tenets) weep bitterly.

The final rule is: ignore these rules and keys will jingle.

/ Hosting Harder
 
Posted by the Ænglican (# 12496) on :
 
I find this very peculiar... As far as I can see, it all hangs on the content of the sermon, because this is either an interesting opportunity or utterly inept.

Remember, this isn't a celebration of "Creation Day" or some such, it's the feast of a particular person: a complex, important, and interesting saint.

One of the things that St. Francis did after organizing his eponymous order was to journey to Egypt with the intent of evangelizing the Sultan. He was attempting to end the Crusades by means of converting them all to Christianity!

Hence, the inclusion of a reading from the Quran could either be brilliant (if engaged during the sermon and explained) or a stunning contradiction of the person being celebrated...
 
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"If" is a big question.
Actually, that "if" isn't a big question at all. The Spirit does speak beyond the words in the Christian Bible. It's his job. "the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things ... I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth." (John 14:26, 16:12-13).

The big question is how we discern whether we're listening to the Spirit of God or some other spirit.
Oh come on... they are not quoting the Kuran because they think the Spirit also talks through it. They quoting it becuase they think the Spirit doesn´t actually talk anywhere. When liberals talk about the Spirit they are not talking about the divine person of the trinity, they´re just sayng something like "that text is nice, it sounds inspired". It´s not like they actually believe there is a God to reveal something to us.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I think that's a huge and inaccurate over-generalisation. There are shades of liberals, some of whom would indeed see things in the way you describe. But there are others who - although perhaps struggling to understand the Personality and Divinity of the Spirit - most certainly would not.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Hostly hat ON

gorpo, you agreed to abide by the Ten Commandments of the Ship when you signed up. One of those states that you should not 'easily offend'. I don't think your last post can be seen as anything other than a attempt to be deliberately offensive to a large swathe of people, including many who have posted on this thread.

Please consider yourself duly warned and try to engage in Ecclesiantics in a manner more respectful of other's traditions in the future.

Hostly hat OFF
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
gorpo,

I don't actually know much about the particular church mentioned in the OP. I was talking more generally of why I would consider it appropriate, at times, to include non-Biblical texts within worship. And, that is because although I believe that the Spirit speaks most clearly through the Bible I also believe truth can be found elsewhere. And, theologically I do not consider myself to be liberal but evangelical (although more liberal than the Missouri Synod Lutherans I currently worship with).
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Alan, if that's in Japan, we probably know some people in common!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Alan, if that's in Japan, we probably know some people in common!
I tried to send a PM, but your inbox is full.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Oops. Off to flush now...
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0