I’ve had a rather exciting media week. As one of my friends said, “it’s nice to see Gavin in the Sun fully clothed and without a whiff of scandal.”
At the weekend the Sunday Times interviewed me for a comment on an unusual situation. A woman vicar was preparing to hide all the Christian symbols in her parish church to make it more comfortable for local Muslim women. I gave a comment and the story appeared throughout the press with a number of colourful radio interviews that followed.
The vicar (and the local mayor) intended to invite some members of the Muslim community to come into the parish Church to mark the end of Ramadan. The idea was to strengthen community relations.
A condition of their coming was that the room they were to use should have the crosses covered up. There was also a rather beautiful and famous pre-Raphaelite painting of Jesus by Holman Hunt. In it, Jesus is standing at the door of thehuman heart with a lantern, asking to be invited in. That was also to be covered up. In the meantime the local Muslim men were to offer Islamic prayers in the body of the Church.
This raised some exciting questions. For example, should the offer of hospitality be made at the price of denying one’s own beliefs or hiding their symbols?
If twitter and the internet are an indication, a large number of Christians were both outraged and deeply upset that a vicar could even contemplate hiding a painting of Jesus and covering crosses to hide them.
It was Mohammed of course who raised the stakes on this one. “Inspired by the Archangel Gabriel” he declared in the Koran that Jesus did not die on the cross; that he did not bear the sins of the whole world; and since he didn’t die on the cross, didn’t rise from the dead either.
The problem her is obvious. Either Jesus was authentic or he was bogus (according to Mohammed) and misleading people. Jesus said he would die as a sacrifice for our sins, and that he would rise from the dead as proof he had the power to forgive sins and bring us clean to heaven.
Jesus’ followers unsurprisingly found this difficult to get their head round when he said it. Who wouldn’t. It had never happened in human history.
One of the great dramas of the New Testament is the description of their astonishment and the transformation of their lives when he appeared to them. The record of the Bible is that he appeared on a number of occasions to hundreds of different people.
One of the tests of whether this actually happened or not, is that many of the people he appeared to after rising from the dead were willing themselves to be tortured and even killed rather than deny it ever happened.
So who is right? Jesus, the early disciples, those who have had mystical experiences of Jesus appearing to them down the ages, or Mohammed and what he wrote in the Koran six hundred years later, getting messages from an angel he thought was called Gabriel announcing the Christian narrative was bogus?
The cross isn’t just a symbol Christians are inspired by. In this context it becomes the sign that stands for accepting the claims of Jesus and the experience of the Christian community, and a refutation of Mohammed and the claims he made in the Koran; which is why it matters to Christians and irritates Muslims.
In fact it annoys Muslims to such an extent that throughout the Middle East, as Isis has gone on its rampage and killing spree, it has made it a priority to destroy crosses wherever it found them. And it provokes them for obvious reasons. If Jesus did rise from the dead, wherever Mohammed was getting his inspiration from, it wasn’t God.
So it’s strange that the vicar in Darlington set so little store by the symbolism in her own Church.
But for people who like to get to the root of the problem, there is a further diagnosis to be made? Would the Muslim men ready to pray in Darlington Parish Church be praying to the same God?
Allah of the Koran is not at all like the God of the Bible that Jesus teaches us to pray to. Allah is unknowable. You please him by keeping the religious rules laid out meticulously in the Koran. He cannot suffer and is beyond feeling and knowing. He demands unconditional obedience.
God the Father is not only knowable, in the parables of Jesus he runs to find and forgive us, welcome us home and celebrate our mutual discovery. He comes in his son to find and forgive.
Take away the word god, and what we have is two value systems. One based on power and submission, and one based on love, intimacy and forgiveness. When their followers are faithful to these values, you get two very different societies, based on radically different values.
Socialising outside mosques and churches across the faiths is a wonderful way of acknowledging our shared humanity and finding out about each other.
But Mohammed and Christ made two very different kinds of follower, and two very different kinds of world. We are free to choose between them, or to repudiate them both. But no one is helped by being under-informed or covering the differences up – literally or symbolically.
This essay is an excellent description of the differences between Christianity and Islam; in particular, by pointing out that what we believe affects how we behave.
By all means, let us demonstrate friendliness and Christian love towards Muslim neighbors, but let us not abandon our faith. We need it, and they do, too.
I served in a predominantly Muslim area in my last parish. The white population were in fact the minority there. I would fully agree with Bishop Ashenden’s comments from both my own experience, and research.
Might I suggest you read ‘Philistine: The Great Deception’ by Ramon Bennett, who tackles this issue in depth. If nothing else, it would give you a comprehensive understanding of why many Christians do not accept that the koranic god is the God of the Bible.
Commenting on a now-defunct website some years ago, I used to defend Catholic statements like that. I don’t think I would any more. A very prominent Egyptian convert, baptized by Pope Benedict on Easter Eve a few years ago, has left the Catholic Church — but not Christianity — over this current Pope’s failures in defending the faith and the faithful.
I believe that Anglican theologians and bishops serving areas in what Samuel Huntington called “the bloody borders of Islam” have to step very carefully in what they say, since Christians in those “bloody borders” are often subjected to horrifying acts of violence.
There is only one God. Muslims misunderstand his nature and activity in a way that makes some critics think they worship another god. Muslims, in return, claim that Christians are polytheists, not monotheists.
As to how we should look at this, see John 14:6. And pray for Muslims, that their eyes may be opened to see the truth.
A clear and succinct differentiation between Christianity and Islam. Thank you, Bishop Gavin. Thank you also for the excellent interview you’d given to the radio.
It is a tragedy that the bishopess of London (a city with a population of some 8 million people) and the vicaress of Darlington (a provincial township with about 100,000 people) got everything muddled up.
I feel very sorry for these theologically unrefined clowns who’d thought they were championing the cause of Christian-Islam interfaith relations. Surely, there is a place for Christain-Islam dialogue, and above all, valuing and co-existing peacefully and respectfully with peoples of all faiths.
I think this comes down to the poor training of these middle-aged and know-it-all persons making a midlife career-advancement-change through becoming priestesses and bishopesses. Since these persons come with previous managerial experience as midwives and the like, my guess is that they get fast tracked to ordination soon after them getting their Sunday School Bible knowledge brushed up through completing a certificate-level theology course by correspondence.
I am sure that there are many such cases within the CoE clergy who are ticking time-bombs waiting to go off and cause damage to the testimony of the church.
One thing I have discovered is my own Church is working to destroy itself. No wonder islam is fast replacing it.
It is important to recognize that the context for paragraph 3 of Nostra Aetate (and additional references to Judaism, Hinduism, etc. within the document, is set out at the end of paragraph 2: (“She” is a reference to “the Church”) “She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.”
That is, our relation with other religions is one in which our own paramount mission is to proclaim Christ. We recognize that those things that we see as “good” in another religion (charity or chastity might be examples) are the work of Christ, even if they themselves do not recognize this. That most religions prohibit murder and theft can be taken not as a sign that they are “partly correct” but as a sign that God is at work everywhere, all the time, even among those that do not know Him, or acknowledge His Son.
We cannot proclaim Christ as the way, the truth, and the life by hiding the cross, or other symbols of the faith, to make spaces that have been consecrated in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit more convenient for the use of other religions.
Perhaps, while my preference leans towards including all of my senses in worship, including sight, I won’t disagree strongly. But your perspective begs the question of “why?” Whether or not these are necessary to us is irrelevant. Why should we feel ashamed and what vicar in their right mind would agree? There is no revelation after Christ. I don’t know who Mohammed was talking (I have my suspicions) to but it wasn’t God or Gabriel.
You misread, or misrepresent, my statement in the third paragraph. What I said was
If it requires more explanation, I did not say it was not possible to proclaim the faith without the use of symbols or buildings.
What I said was that removing the symbols from a consecrated space does not proclaim Christ. In fact, the use of the space itself (symbols or no) by a religion that considers the proclamation of Christ to be blasphemy, is entirely contrary to the prayers of consecration for the building in the first place. For instance
(attributed to Lancelot Andrewes) While that form is not required by the CoE (the bishop has a lot of leeway, apparently, when consecrating a new church in CoE), it was a part of the service of consecration in the US from the late 18th century until the 1979 prayer book was published.
Even the 1979 has this:
It is clear in the prayers of consecration themselves that any use of the space for other than Christian purposes is not allowed. For further reading, Cramner wrote a homily (1st homily of the 2nd volume) on the use of church buildings. (The reading and understanding of the Homilies being the subject of Article XXXV)
“Hiding the cross, in itself, attests to the power, significance of the cross!”
How is one to make sense of this statement?
I’m sorry to say, alpha, that that makes no sense at all.
That is not at all why the religious symbols were covered up, just like that’s not why they were covered up in military houses of worship when I was serving, or in the Veteran’s Administration since then.
They are covered up so as not to offend non-Christians, usually Muslims.
That, and that alone, is the specific reason.
Sure, in some places there are multi-use facilities where one hour there can be a Christian service, the next a Hindu one, and the symbols are covered. But that is not what happened here.
The symbols were covered up so as not to offend the Muslims. This theory of the power of covered religious symbols is baffling because it is not true.
The Church of England should take care of Holy Scripture when they do such things: Mark 8:38 (ESV) For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
Oh, I agree totally with what you say about the blame should be on those who did the covering, and not Muslims. The latter did not do it, those in the church DID. I have no problem with inviting Muslims in for an ecumenical service, save one. But the symbols should remain uncovered. If that’s a problem, the service should be held in a secular setting. When I mention Muslims, I’m not saying who’s to blame, I’m saying WHY.
The ‘save one’ are the prayers. It’s in the 39 Articles (XXIV. Of speaking in the Congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth.
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.) that we don’t pray in a language the people there don’t understand, and one of their prayers in particular does not belong in a Christian church.
By the way, my church was having a Bible study when a parishioner who is NOT a Pentecostal brought this Article up in regards to ‘praying in tongues’ in church. A retired clergyman in my church, who was there, and is VERY MUCH Pentecostal choked and sputtered so much I thought I’d have to call 911. I tried to stay neutral and say “This is precisely why Paul said there must be an interpreter” but the two were only hearing each other. The exchange between the two was priceless.
God bless you, alphaTomega, no need to apologize.
I understand accommodation, to a point. We are having a choir from a resident Christian drug and alcohol rehabilitation program, and I will offer the Eucharist with unsweetened grape juice, something I never do at any other time.
But to cover up Christian symbols is like covering up the mention of Christ, not sharing the Gospel message. That, for me, is a bridge too far.
I would think that the WHOLE POINT of an ecumenical service in a house of worship is that you HAVE people of faiths coming together proclaiming who they are.
If someone has a problem with the host’s proclamation of faith, that’s not very ecumenical, that’s not being a good guest.
If there is a problem with someone not wanting to be ecumenical in an ecumenical service, have it at a ‘neutral site’, a conference all or theater.
God bless you, it’s the idea I’m debating, not the person. Have a blessed day!
If that’s the painting that was covered up, it should stay that way…it’s pretty hideous. Jesus looks more like a red-headed Father Christmas than the Lord of lords. (Perhaps it’s not so bad in person?) But otherwise, covering the crosses is kind of a pointless gesture…why didn’t the Christians just go to the mosque? Or meet at the local Moose lodge? Whatever…it seems we are always the ones having to compromise, never the Muslims. Which is, no doubt, due to the fact that when Christians are offended, they are commanded to forgive their enemies. But when Muslims are offended, they are commanded to lop off heads and blow people up. *sigh* Come, Lord Jesus… :/ <><