Lesbian bishop: 'Remove crosses from church'

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicKnight3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholic_farmer said:
I am confused.

Is there precedance for this in other countries? Does the Church Of England accommodate Muslims within her churches and cathedrals?
Click to expand...
Yes, churches accommodate Muslims (and other faith traditions) in other settings. Chapels in hospitals and airports and other places that are intended to be used as places of prayer for all people are often without specific Christian symbols.

They are not parish churches. There is a difference.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Yes, churches accommodate Muslims (and other faith traditions) in other settings. Chapels in hospitals and airports and other places that are intended to be used as places of prayer for all people are often without specific Christian symbols.

They are not parish churches. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
Okay, yes, that exists here in the US as well. “Chapels” denote no specific faith, while “church” does. We also have chapels in airports and hospitals, while the military chapels are supposed to accommodate every faith. However, if a chapel was originally built as a Christian place of worship, there is usually another space set aside for Muslims. A place without decorations, which is more in line with their preferred surroundings.

So, if this was a chapel that was built as a Christian place of worship, it would make more sense to find a separate accommodation for the Muslim sailors. However, if this was a chapel built to accommodate all, then, I suppose taking the cross down is more in line with that approach. While it makes us sad to see the symbol of our religion removed, it isn’t surprising.

The personal habits of the bishop are not relevant because she is recognized as a bishop by her church. I think that was mentioned to sensationalize the story.
 
Oh, ComplineSanFran, What is the difference between the chapels you were speaking of and parish churches? Do parish churches accommodate other faiths at all? Or just other Christian faiths?
 
Catholic_farmer said:
The personal habits of the bishop are not relevant because she is recognized as a bishop by her church. I think that was mentioned to sensationalize the story.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you on this issue, Catholic Farmer. She must get very tired of being called the ‘Lesbian Bishop.’
 
Catholic_farmer said:
Oh, ComplineSanFran, What is the difference between the chapels you were speaking of and parish churches? Do parish churches accommodate other faiths at all? Or just other Christian faiths?
Click to expand...
Catholic farmer, I am in the US, and I am not Lutheran, but I can tell you generally that if a state church builds a chapel for the larger population or special interest group, it still remains under the jurisdiction of the church, but should work towards ministering to all appropriate faiths. Hospitals, hospices, airports, etc. as we have both said.

That is very different from a parish church where it serves a specific faith community (in this case Lutheran) in their communal worship, sacraments and ministry. Of course each parish church should be open to visitors from every tradition, but they do so in their specific way of worship. You keep the cross in place in a parish church. You keep all the symbols of the faith in the parish church. In a chapel that provides an interfaith ministry, it seems not so necessary.
 
I read an article on this

more people were mad at the SSA than they were at the remove crosses part 😦
 
Murmurs said:
Some people always assume the worse.

“Muslims will suppress us once they can.”

“The Government is always out to get us”

“Trump will win the nomination”

It turns out usually that the worst doesn’t happen, really.
Click to expand...
Yes, muslims WILL suppress us once they can. You better believe it. Wait till they become the majority and see what happens.
 
Murmurs said:
Thanks for that CK but I’m pretty sure this woman’s sexuality has literally nothing to do with this story (if we want to discuss whether an openly gay person in a relationship, never mind a woman, can be a bishop, that’s fine, but I don’t think it’s relevant here). Nor as far as I can see, is her, my or anyone’s views about differing merits and demerits of economic structures. (FWIW I broadly agree with you though I wouldn’t call socialism “evil” so much as well-meaningly incompetent).

To be honest to quote that our struggles are not against flesh and blood and then attack people/the media for a homosexual agenda is kind of having one’s cake and eating it. But anyway, that’s not what this is about. It’s again a well-meaning and benign (though rather ridiculous IMO) attempt at addressing the need to practice integration. The fact that this bishop is a lesbian may well mean she has a greater sense of how outcasting people for not belonging to or able to identify with particular sets of values is greatly damaging.

Nah. It is (as I say) well-meaning, not ‘trying to get you’. The problem is the occupant to whom you refer is useless, not evil.
Click to expand...
Useless in what
 
The Bishops sexual orientation is beside the point here and doesn’t figure at all as to why this troubles me.
Just got done reading an article in the Christian Post that several Protestant Churches are removing altars, crosses and other Christian symbols to accommodate refugees of other faiths. I find this quite troubling and I think it sends the wrong message to non-Christians.
Now first of all, the article did not state that the churches were being asked to remove their symbols but it seemed they were doing so of their own volition. And if that’s what they want to do, fine.
But I know that if I, a Christian, had to seek refuge for any reason in a Mosque, or Synagogue or Buddhist temple or whatever I would never dream of expecting them to remove their religious symbols or Holy Books. Not that any refugees from what I could tell were asking or expecting this of the churches. I just find it troubling that the churches think they have to do this, and I do think it sends the wrong message, that Christians are ashamed of who they are or what they stand for.
Can’t we help those less fortunate and those in need AND keep our symbols and distinctiveness?
 
I had the same reaction pretty much everyone else had regarding removing the crosses. Investigating deeper it’s not quite as cut and dry as it would seem however. It seems this really revolves around a single church that is in a pretty unique position of being a seafarer’s chapel of sorts historically, used by multiple Christian faiths. And her proposal was only to temporarily remove the crosses so that some of Muslim refugees flooding into the region from Syria would have a place to worship.

Obviously the reaction to the suggestion has been pretty much universally negative, and the church’s director has rejected it, but the idea of being charitable to those in need was not off base. The bishop’s heart seems to have been in the right place even if her execution wasn’t. And indeed the church may ultimately be where some of the poor souls fleeing Syria end up engaging in their prayers, even if removing the crosses does not rightfully occur.
 
Vanny said:
The Bishops sexual orientation is beside the point here and doesn’t figure at all as to why this troubles me.
Just got done reading an article in the Christian Post that several Protestant Churches are removing altars, crosses and other Christian symbols to accommodate refugees of other faiths. I find this quite troubling and I think it sends the wrong message to non-Christians.
Now first of all, the article did not state that the churches were being asked to remove their symbols but it seemed they were doing so of their own volition. And if that’s what they want to do, fine.
But I know that if I, a Christian, had to seek refuge for any reason in a Mosque, or Synagogue or Buddhist temple or whatever I would never dream of expecting them to remove their religious symbols or Holy Books. Not that any refugees from what I could tell were asking or expecting this of the churches. I just find it troubling that the churches think they have to do this, and I do think it sends the wrong message, that Christians are ashamed of who they are or what they stand for.
Can’t we help those less fortunate and those in need AND keep our symbols and distinctiveness?
Click to expand...
Couple of thoughts.
First, yes we can, and indeed we must keep our symbols, our iconology, because regardless of anything else, we preach Christ and Him crucified. The source and basis of our charity is one who loved us, while we were still in our sins.

As for the comparison of your expectation if you were a refugee compared to this current situation is, we must remember that this is not simply a refugee migration. If it were, they would go to other Muslim lands just as near by.
The fact is this is not just a refugee migration. This is a Hijrah, a jihad by emigration into non-Muslim areas. It’s the Hungarian government that got this right.

We can (and should) help those suffering, without giving up our faith and traditions, our culture and our art.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Couple of thoughts.
First, yes we can, and indeed we must keep our symbols, our iconology, because regardless of anything else, we preach Christ and Him crucified. The source and basis of our charity is one who loved us, while we were still in our sins.

As for the comparison of your expectation if you were a refugee compared to this current situation is, we must remember that this is not simply a refugee migration. If it were, they would go to other Muslim lands just as near by.
The fact is this is not just a refugee migration. This is a Hijrah, a jihad by emigration into non-Muslim areas. It’s the Hungarian government that got this right.

We can (and should) help those suffering, without giving up our faith and traditions, our culture and our art.

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon , the vast majority of the refugees are in fact , refugees , fleeing suffering, death , rape etc , not jihadists, no they wouldn’t go to near by lands , because western lands are better able to help them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top