"We must understand each other while holding onto our beliefs. The problems arise when there's not enough understanding, and one religion tries to lord it over another."

What a shame Popoola and his bishop cannot afford that same understanding to their fellow Anglicans and Christians who disagree with them on something far less essential than the differences between mono- and polytheism.

In this context, did anyone see the article in yesterday's Times "let's make peace to save the world", about a Muslim initiative to the Pope and other leading Christians to discover what unites us rather than divides us?
Sadly, +Rochester is already against it, fortunately Rowan appears to have commented positively.

Sorry, I can't seem to get to the link in the Times Online. Maybe someone else here can?

Erika,

The link to the Islamic statement is here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2636117.ece

It is a mistake to say that +Rochester is against Muslim proclamations of peace - indeed he welcomed the new opportunity for dialogue - but he quite rightly warned that that this must be a genuine dialogue which acknowledges both our similarities as well as our differences. The Muslim insistence on the oneness of God in the document, for example, is most certainly not the same as the Christian perspective; indeed, Sura 9:30 of the Koran curses those who believe Christ to be the Son of God.

Even more problematic is this statement: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes." Now, this is all well and good, so long as it is made absolutely clear that Christians must receive the same treatment in Muslim nations. Unlike the genuine religious freedom enjoyed throughout much of Europe and America, religious minorities continue to suffer persecution and oppression in much of the Islamic world, both in theocratic and purportedly secular states (new churches cannot be built in Turkey, for example:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/21393?&eng=y )

While Archbishop Rowan has numerous strengths, he has been notably poor at confronting religious persecution in various parts of the world, in contrast to the robust defence of Christian minorities offered by his counterpart in Rome. It seems fair to say that +Rochester, who has witnessed such activity first hand and laid his life on the line to fight such oppression, is in a much better position to offer a balanced appraisal of this document.

Ruth Gledhill makes similar points here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2638044.ece

John,
thank you for the link and the explanations.
I confess to having read the article only briefly, so if I have misrepresented +Rochester, I apologise.

And yes, religious persecution must be confronted. Yet, the purpose of this initiative is to heal, not to highlight and emphasise the differences. In itself, it's brave and a very welcome and necessary start.

Erika,

Many thanks for this. You are absolutely right that it is a step in the right direction, and ought to be welcomed as an opportunity for dialogue.

I can sympathise, however, with those who believe that before Muslim leaders lecture Christian leaders on peace, they would do well to redouble efforts to persuade their fellow Muslims to renounce violence as a means of achieving their aims. Over the past two decades, by a huge multiple, far more Muslims have been killed and driven out of their homes by their co-religionists, very often in the name of Allah, than by all others put together. In the meantime, we ought to be setting an example, and I hope that the leaders of the various Churches will engineer a suitable response.

Just as a follow up to my previous post: Anglican Christians are taking the lead in building bridges with Islam, even in places not known for their embrace of conciliatary language. See this Church Times article on the efforts of the outgoing Bishop of Kaduna:

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=35431

"I can sympathise, however, with those who believe that before Muslim leaders lecture Christian leaders on peace, they would do well to redouble efforts to persuade their fellow Muslims to renounce violence as a means of achieving their aims."

As do I. Further, your comments on religious freedom are bang on. In Saudi Arabia, one can't be anything other than Muslim, even in private, and Christians aren't accorded anything like equality across much of the Muslim world. Also, there is the interesting phenomenon of disrespecting the Prophet. Now I understand their point, and I see no reason to insult other people's religion making "freedom of speech" mean "freedom to disrespect". Yet, I'd like to point out that we, thank God, do not take umbrage at their denial of the Divinity of Jesus, though it can easily be seen as disrespectful. The cursing of those who believe Christ's Divinity has already been mentioned.

"I can sympathise, however, with those who believe that before Muslim leaders lecture Christian leaders on peace, they would do well to redouble efforts to persuade their fellow Muslims to renounce violence as a means of achieving their aims."

I don't like the negativity of this sentence. No-one is "lecturing", and no-one says that Muslims shouldn't bring their own house in order too.
But if a group of brave Muslims (and in many countries you have to be brave to advocate talking to those of other faith), suggests a dialogue, why can we not say:

Thank you for taking a first step. Let's hope our combined efforts will help other Muslims in other countries to enter into a dialogue and to soften their stance towards other faiths. Of course, we will never agree on everything, especially not the relative importance and truths of our faiths, but that should not stop us from working towards a peaceful co-existence. And we will not tar all of you with the same brush as though all Muslims were alike, so we will respect what you do, while at the same time criticising the fundamentalists among you. We hope you will do the same.

John and Ford:

Excellent comments. One of the problems that besets us--in terms of requirements for "respect"--is C.S. Lewis' "trilemma" argument, which applies to Mohammed as well as to Jesus.

In other words, the testimony of Jesus leaves us no alternative to consider him merely a good man. Someone who claims to be God incarnate can only be one of three things: A very evil person, a very crazy person, or what he says he is.

Jews face this dilemma with regard to Jesus. Likewise, Christians and Jews face a similar dilemma with regard to Mohammed, who claimed to be a prophet (indeed, the seal of the prophets), denied Jesus' claim to divinity, and claimed to speak for God. He is not subject to being categorized merely as a "good" man. He either was crazy, was evil, or was what he said he was. As with Jesus, there are only three possibilities (unless you deny part of his message).

So, we are left with the fact that Jews cannot hold a good opinion of Jesus/mohammed without denying large parts of their messages. Christians are in the same position vis-a-vis Mohammed. Mohammedans are, in fact, only able to have a good opinion of Jesus because they already have denied a large part of his message.

Solutions?

Steven

It is a wonderful first step, these Muslims have brought a gift to the table and opened their hearts to show how co-habitating peace might be possible.

After all, we all dependent on the same source for air, water and resources, we might as well learn to live with each other.

Sure, some Muslims are still going to be a problem, but everyone on TA can easily name some Christians who also seem to find peace an anathema.

If we let the bullies control the agenda, there will never be peace. If we led the immature hotheads provoke conflicts, they will never end because some souls just love violence. Look at how some souls move around globally just for the chance to play with weapons and bombs.

Wisdom involves seeking out the best in each other and offering the best from within oneself. It involves pouring soothing oils on stormy waters to reduce fears and tension. It involves offering the olive branch to "the other", just as the dove did to Noah.

"He either was crazy, was evil, or was what he said he was. As with Jesus, there are only three possibilities (unless you deny part of his message)."

Even if you believe you have to judge the different faiths in such an exclusive fashion, there is a simple solution to your dilemma.
Substitute "evil" with "wrong" or "misguided" or "mistaken", and you no longer need to revile those who don't share your beliefs.

"Solutions?"

Well, a good first step would be to stop trumpeting that anyone who isn't a Christian will be roasted in Hell for all eternity. It might be an idea for Consevo parishes to stop demanding that their bishop either do this or provide them with alternate Episcopal oversight because he is persecuting them. It might be an idea to grow up enough to be able to say, and mean, "I believe you are wrong, but I respect the fact that you believe you are right. I will try, as Jesus commanded, to show you what I believe to be the True Light by my example, to be the city on the hill that cannot be hid. I will no longer claim that if you do not accept my faith, you are an unrepentant heathen and anything that I do to force you to my religious beliefs is fair game." That'd be a good start. It might also be an idea to do what the ancient saints did before the Church got the power to force people to Her will. The Celts had few if any martyrs, since the missionaries who went to them did not condemn their native religion as being of the Devil. Instead they perceived that the pagans had seen something of the Light but hadn't understood it. Still a bit condescending, perhaps, but better than beating them over the head with our condemnation of them and claiming it's from God.

Ford:

Everything up to the last bit about the Celts seems a bit off topic, though I suppose everyone has a right to vent from time to time. And, a parallel between Celts and Moslems seems a bit stretched. Moslems are not the followers of an ancient pagan religion, they claim to already know everything they need to know about Christ and Christianity, would consider the type of preaching you suggest to be condescending in the extreme considering the fact they hold their religion to be vastly superior to anything Christianity has to offer, and do not allow conversion or missionaries in the vast majority of cases and places. Instead, both are subject to extreme persecution and/or death.

It's obvious that we need to talk to the representatives of Islam, but any implication that it is the West that needs to be more open rather than Moslems is ludicrous in the extreme. The West already allows freedom of religion and conversion without government sanctioned and/or encouraged persecution. These things are virtually non-nonexistent in Moslem dominated lands/areas. Our talking should be aimed at achieving religious freedom in Moslem lands. Whether this will ever be possible is another matter.

Steven

We were talking about relationships between religions, and I do think the way certain Christian groups go about "evangelism" is on topic. The level of insult and scheming gives a poor image of Christianity. Publically claiming that God doesn't hear the prayer of a Muslim doesn't help either, yet that has been done,as you know. You can't say the kinds of things I mentioned DON'T happen, and it seems to me they poison the atmosphere of Christian/Muslim relations. I have spoken to many Muslims who speak of the things Christians get up to in their countries. The phenomenon of the Rice Christian is not new. It also resonates with what I grew up with, any kind of sculduggery was acceptable as long as it got us heathen Anglican non-Christians to "get saved". Christians are seen as predatory, judgemental, and rude by a lot of non-Christians, and I think the blame can solidly be laid at the feet of people like the ones I grew up with. I agree with the openness of the West and the "closedness" of the Muslim world. I am also not a gult assumer who is guilty for all the sins of te eworld just because I'm white. I am not claiming Islam is some wonderful freedom loving religion that we horrid Westerners are mistreating. I AM l;aiming that the attitude of some Christians toward non-Christians is abysmal, unChristian, and makes for bad relations between religions. But they also make for bad relations within Christianity as well.

Ford

I concur there are some who claim "God doesn't hear the prayer of a Muslim" nor of any other who never even heard of them, were born before their time, or refused to be co-opted by them because they were just plain nasty (the opposite of gentleness that Jesus promised to the Daughter of Zion).

Fortunately, God has a way around stupid self-righteous priests. God would never judge or treat a soul more harshly than it deserves.

So... God assigns higher souls to look after an area, they are the "holding pattern" guardians for souls not acknowledged by the human churches. Those souls acknowledge Jesus and vouch for the souls who come under their umbrella. Those souls thus indirectly acknowledge Jesus and are thus saved.

It fulfills the scripture that all souls must come through Jesus and bypasses the cruel interpretations that demand that souls must make the right decision, even if they did not know there was a decision to be made.

Of course, this is all false teachings as the Daughter of Zion aka Cheva/Eve aka Cherubim of the Glory doesn't exist. So therefore neither Jesus nor his churches have affronted her sensibilities or covenants. Jesus tore open the veils to the temple, there was no one's home destroyed and Jesus has no responsibility for anyone enslaved by Christian theology.

All the Jewish teachings are rubbish, Jesus came from nothing and is accountable for honoring no one, so his priests can enslave and accuse anyone one they want (or even deny their existence) and Jesus doesn't have a problem with that because his "perfect" wifely church keeps him completely satisfied.

"bypasses the cruel interpretations that demand that souls must make the right decision"

You know, Cheryl, I don't often agree with your theological ideas, but this line resonated. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life because He bypasses the humans who presume to put themselves in His place and decide who's holy and who's not. Is He is saying, "You know, it's for Me to decide, not you, so if you persist in judging other people's sinfulness instead of working on decreasing your own, then I'll just welcome everybody and see how you like that!" I wonder if He wants the poor and the downtrodden at His table so that the pious judgementalists can be made to squirm at His obvious love for the least of these our brethren and his total disregard for, and refusal to honour, the selfrighteousness of the high and mighty. He tells us not to go up to the front of the banquet, since we will be embarrassed if we are asked to move lower down in favour of someone else. I get an image of Bob Duncan at the Heavenly Feast, being asked to step down from the high table because some street kid, kicked out of his family for being gay and forced into a life of drug addiction and prostitution, has been asked to move up from the little chair he found for himself in the back, and where Duncan must now go! Won't that be a hoot!?! Hope I get to see it before us goats head off to the left hand side!

Hallelujah Ford.

There are souls who like to gloat over human inadequacy and prove that they are "not capable" of making the "right" decision in each and every circumstance, or even in some clearly delineated circumstances.

Yet your posting acknowledges that God and higher souls would create mechanisms for "only humans" to be reconciled to God, irregardless of their historical opportunities or literacy.

Glad to see us moving together on some common ground. Please forgive my naivity, I thought we had more in common than you did, but that must be my optimistic tendencies coming to the fore.

Cheryl,
No need to agree on everything. I work with people of different religious traditions, and we often discuss things. The differences are as informative as the similarities. The Hindu concept of images shares some interesting differences and similarities to ours. Muslim concepts of honour are also quite informative. As a Christian, I believe killing anyone, for any reason, is a sin. They would not agree in certain instances, for example. I don't understand much of what you say about Shekinah, the Daughter of Sion, and all that stuff. It sounds syncretistic to me, in a way that acknowledging the "partial truth", if you will, of non-Christian traditions does not. But it's sincere, and you do not deny your own sin while condemning others. We are both walking the path that leads to God, as the Real Orthodox put it. You are taking different steps from me. That's not a problem. Redemption is a process, not an event, and your ideas are only a problem for those who think the reverse.

Ford

Thanks for giving me another point in my complaints before God i.e. Christians have forgotten about the cherubim of the ark, their sentimentalities and personalities.

Yes, it is only part of the truth, just as Catholism is only part of Christianity. But it is a piece of the jigsaw puzzle that should not be forgotten, especially in Christian circles.

You see, Christianity claims that Jesus became "the high priest" (e.g. see Hebrews 8-10), who had free access to the divine energy in the inner temple and for whom the veil was torn open because it was now safe for humanity to approach God without God killing them. Jesus had appeased God and taken responsibility for each individual's conduct so they no longer had to worry about being pure and above reproach to have a dialogue with God.

Those who deny or forget the consciousnesses of the cherubim of the ark can then gloss over their desires and covenants. The Jews recovered the ark in 2005, it has a masculine and feminine cherubim facing each other with their wings spread towards each other and the temple in between them.

In the tikkun olam model, we are trying to heal a broken world, which includes reconciliation between the masculine and feminine. The bible refers to an everlasting covenant of peace on a number of occasions and offers it to the Daughter of Zion and refers to it as the covenant of Levi.

Levi is another name for "the high priest".

Jesus as he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey told the Daughter of Zion not to be afraid as he was gentle. That was a peace offering.

In forgetting this important jigsaw puzzle, or dismissing its relevance, teachers of law have been able to be partial in their biblical interpretations and go on to deceitfully justify tyranny, repression and vilification.

If we can win the point in Christian circles, we will find ourselves aligned with the moderates from Jewish and Islamic circles, which would then bring the Abrahamic religions in line with the gentle eastern and other religious thinkings, which would then bring credibility to the humanists and secularists.

It is the key to getting a core agreement that God is for peace and against tyranny, and would make any priest who advocates otherwise in fundamental transgression of God's Will. That is why it is worth having this debate.