Thursday, 13 February 2020

"Soulless neutrality"


St Hilda's College, Oxford                                                                                                Source: web


From the Telegraph: St Hilda’s College in Oxford is set to become the first  undergraduate college in the University to cease having a dedicated Anglican chapel, transitioning instead to a multi-faith prayer room described by Elizabeth Oldfield as a victory for 'soulless neutrality'. 

This decision even ruffled the feathers of Giles Fraser who wrote: "St Hilda’s College is the first college of the University of Oxford to have demolished its chapel. First of all they were going to replace it. But having knocked down the old one they have now decided they want a multi-faith space instead. The humanists are crowing that this represents a triumph for the forces of secularism – and they are, of course, perfectly correct."

But Fraser goes further: "This has nothing to do with an Anglican desire to maintain some sort of theological dominance within the University. If St Hilda’s decided it was going to have a mosque or a synagogue instead, I for one could entirely see the point and much prefer it. Such a space would have a particular religious character and be so better for that. Indeed, there are dozens of college chapels. So why not a bit of re-balancing? But of course they won't do that, too afraid of the Daily Mail, too afraid of being labeled as the college with the mosque."

Prior to 2007 St Hilda's was a Hall for Women Students. Women would have been able to worship on equal terms with men in the Anglican chapel unlike Muslim and Orthodox Jewish women who are segregated in worship.

Replacing the dedicated Anglican Chapel with a multi-faith prayer room is a politically correct, retrograde step signalling equal worth of beliefs contrary to the teaching of the Bible.

Ignorance of what Islam teaches is rife and is unlikely to improve without radical changes.

In July 2019 the Government appointed an "Independent expert" to tackle Islamophobia. The appointee, Imam Qari Asim, MBE, said at the time: "To tackle the alarming rise in anti-Muslim sentiment, it is imperative that Islamophobia is defined. I am deeply committed to working across Muslim communities and with relevant stakeholders to formulate a legally robust, comprehensive and workable definition of Islamophobia."

Talking at a workshop organised by The Centre for Muslim-Christian Studies the Imam "argued the case for Muslims to obey the law of the land most of the time. But he also made clear how he would like the law to accommodate Islamic ideas. For example, he would like to see polygamy legalised, and inheritance to favour male heirs in line with sharia principles. He also supports Islamic finance with its radical view that interest should be banned." He would also "support an explicit Islamic blasphemy law."

Qari Asim is facing calls to stand down after he was accused of questioning free speech. Replaced or not, a clear distinction needs to be made between Muslims and Islam. Having an opinion on the teaching of Islam is not anti-Muslim.

The 'soulless neutrality' of political and spiritual leaders also needs to be confronted.

The following is an extract from Christian Concern's Is Islam a religion of peace? :

The teaching of the Qur’an

"Confusingly for the ordinary reader, the Qur’an is not in chronological order. The chapters (Surahs) come in order of length, from the longest to the shortest. According to classical Islamic teaching, however, earlier verses (in chronology of revelation rather than position in the Qur’an) are sometimes cancelled by later instructions in a manner somewhat similar to how Christians view the New Testament as cancelling some of the instructions of the Old Testament. This Islamic doctrine is called abrogation, and it is found in the Qur’an:

"We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent? (Q 2:106)

"Or again:

"And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse – and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down – they say, “You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies].” But most of them do not know. (Q 16:101)[10]

"This doctrine of abrogation enables apparent contradictions in the Qur’an to be resolved; later verses abrogate earlier ones. Furthermore, Muhammad did not advocate violence earlier in his career, but waited until he had amassed a following large enough to wage war. Earlier verses are thus more peaceful, while later verses are more violent.

"The most famous example of a peaceful verse is Q 2:256:

"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

"However, this verse, and many others, is regarded as having been abrogated by the ‘verse of the sword’:[11]

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Q 9:5)

"In fact, surah 9 is the last chapter to be revealed in the Qur’an and is seen as abrogating earlier instructions. Surah 9 is also the most violent chapter as the following verses demonstrate:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Q 9:29)

"Here ‘Jizya’ is the Islamic subjugation tax to be paid by Christians or Jews who have accepted the subjugated status of ‘dhimmi’.

"O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination. (Q 9:73)

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? (Q 9:111)

"O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. (Q 9:123)

"Note that these are open-ended commands without qualification. In total, there are well over a hundred verses advocating violence in the Qur’an.[12]"

Postscript

An extract from Christian Concern's How to tackle the Islamisation of prisons:

"The latest prison population statistics show that 16.1% of the prison population is Muslim, up from 12% in 2009. This compares with around 5.6% of the UK population who identify as Muslim. As of 2018 there were 61 full-time equivalent Muslim prison ‘chaplains’ (nearly 40% of all chaplains working in prisons), compared with 157 Christian prison chaplains. This makes the Prison Service one of the largest employers of Muslim religious professionals in the country. Yet former prison governor Ian Acheson, when reviewing Islamist extremism in prisons, found that virtually none of the prison imams he asked even knew about their Prevent duty."

45 comments:

  1. I suspect that many colleges and universities only have such prayer rooms. Certainly that was the case at my "alma mater" of Southampton, back in the early 1970s, where Christians and Muslims managed to give each other space and time in what was a very small room! My later institution, King's College London, is of course a Christian foundation and has a magnificent chapel which, certainly in my time, was only used for Christian worship.

    What I find concerning in the post above - and please bear in mind that I couldn't read the whole "Telegraph" article because I'm not a subscriber - is the disconnect between the news that St. Hilda's is replacing its chapel with a multi-faith prayer room and the following sections about Islam. Surely the whole point is that the new prayer space will be for all faiths; hopefully the College authorities will monitor the use it gets and not allow it to become the exclusive preserve of any other group, whether that be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Pagan or whatever.

    We may well feel sad or disappointed by the decision the College has taken (although, as the "Telegraph" article says, times have changed). But the jump from that decision to a lengthy diatribe about Islam puzzles me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Baptist Trainfan: the connection is made in Giles Fraser's reported comment on this development. One wonders whether the fact that the college bears the name of a Christian saint has any significance for its members, and in particular for those who exercise authority in and over it. If it does, I suspect she is celebrated more as a historic Feminist Icon than as a living Icon of Christ.

      Delete
    2. Obviously I have no idea - but you could well be right. Certainly the little spiuel about Hilda on the College website makes great play of the fact that "Whitby Abbey, ... was the leading house of education of [the] time", that "Dorothea Beale was a great educationalist [so] she chose St Hilda when she was fighting to create opportunities for women in the second half of the 19th century" and that "St Hilda too spent her life advancing the cause of learning". There's not so much specifically about her Christian faith.

      Delete
  2. In the interests of Equality, when will they be opening a non-faith room?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The way the bishops are hacking great lumps out of the Christian Faith, every Anglican Church in Britain will soon be a non-faith room. We will all be able to believe what we want, or nothing at all.
      Seymour

      Delete
    2. As long as I am not obliged to believe the drivel spouted by the Church in Wales that's fine with me.

      Delete
  3. It is no use the Church giving in to the secular demands of equality such as to make the Christian faith, by implication, of no more value than Islam or other faiths. It must once more start believing.
    LW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While you and I agree that Christians must indeed "start believing", a truly secular society is one which neither endorses the truth claims of any religion, nor privileges any religious (or other) group above any other. (Nor does it refuse to give religions a voice). Of course in Britain we have a long tradition of Christianity shaping our society, to the extent that Anglicanism is still Established in England though not, of course, elsewhere. This must not be ignored or thrown away lightly. However we must also recognise that, in its early days, Christianity had to fight for its place amidst a sea of other religions: that is the situation to which we are now returning. In some ways that's not a bad thing even though it makes things far less comfortable for us.

      Delete
    2. BT. You have declared us a secular society, but we have an Established church with the Queen as its head. Our institutions and government still have a Christian basis.
      You seem reasonably happy to take us all back to the trials of the early Church. With respect your stance gives encouragement to the growth of Islam when - uncomfortable as it is - it must be challenged theologically.
      LW

      Delete
    3. I take your point, but only England has an Established Church.

      Delete
  4. Call me old-fashioned, but I would never use a "multi-faith" prayer room, unless, perhaps, a cleansing and reclaiming service were held first. If the Christians at St Hilda's want to meet or worship together, I suspect other accommodation will be used. Sadly, that will then mean a "multi-faith" prayer room used (probably) just by Islam, or by no-one at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Multi-faith rooms inevitably become 'mosques' since the discipline of Islamic prayer drives Muslims to use the space frequently especially in the winter months. Muslims also seem to not worry too much about others using the space and so are never put off by non-Muslims in their practice whereas the opposite is true with Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Only England? How about the established (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland, or the various countries where either Orthodoxy (in its Eastern or Oriental versions) or Roman Catholicism are recognised as the national Church?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was only thinking of Britain (in reply to Anonymous above), I have no idea about the rest of the world. And, although the CofS is the National Church and the Monarch sends their representative to General Assembly, I don't think it is Established as is the CofE - for instance the Moderator doesn't sit in the House of Lords.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Church of Scotland is the established church there, which oddly means that the royal family worship as Presbyterians when they're at Balmoral.

      But the establishment settlement in Scotland is different from that of England, and - you're right - the moderator doesn't sit in the Lords. As I understand that the moderator holds the office for one year only, perhaps that's understandable!

      Delete
  8. AB: will you allow me to raise a subject, which could be causing distress? Outbreaks of flu this winter have caused parishioners in one CinWs parish known to me to be denied the Communion wine on grounds of hygiene. So far as I know, this has not been discussed or voted on by the PCC concerned. I do not know if the bishop in whose diocese the parish is has any views on the matter. Perhaps those CinWs bishops who cannot stop themselves reading this blog (they have to keep abreast of what the 'devil' is thinking) might discuss it and provide a ruling. Needless to say, the corona virus outbreak has strengthened the incumbent's argument. Interestingly William Temple in his commentary on the Fourth Gospel wrote:
    'Both "elements" are needed for a full act of "communion" - which suggests that to receive the Holy Communion in one kind only is grievously detrimental to the full reality of the sacrament.'(page 92 paperback edition).
    Contributions to a discussion welcome.
    1549

    ReplyDelete
  9. When the swine flu epidemic broke out in 2009, some CofE parishes invoked the Sacrament Act of 1547, which enjoined Communion under both kinds "except (when) necessity otherwise required" and stopped offering the Cup on grounds of hygiene. (Whether this Act still applies is, of course, a matter of debate). Other parishes, following Diocesan advice, insisted that worshippers take their wafer and intinct it in the wine, thus preventing the spread of germs via the common cup. Certainly we did this in the Sheltered Housing where I conducted communion monthly. (We didn't do this in my church as, like many Nonconformists, we used "wee cuppies" instead of a chalice). In any case I believe that one can legitimately ask whether there really is any danger of disease transmission by using a common cup. But I'm only a Baptist ... and any change to Communion practice would at least need to be approved by the Diaconate (=PCC) if not by a decision of the congregation - I appreciate than Anglican polity works differently.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I understand that in at least one CinW diocese (St Asaph) the advice follows the CofE guidelines, namely, that the 'common cup' is fine (wiped and turned as in normal practice), that intinction should not be allowed (hands are notable germ carriers!), that the president should use hand gel before handling wafers, that those who wish to avoid touching hands during the peace should do so by smiling or some such (since coming to the table 'in peace' with our fellow worshippers is paramount), and anyone who has cold-like symptoms should recognise that communion in one kind is allowed and therefore only take the wafer. (NotGoneYet)

    ReplyDelete
  11. And in parishes where no choice is given for reception in two kinds?
    1549

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Wiped and turned" was certainly not "normal practice" when I was taught how to administer the Chalice in the 1970s, although wiping with a purificator (rather grudgingly; at the end of the row and additionally after communicants wearing lipstick) was beginning to be accepted in Anglo-Catholic circles. A properly constructed chalice has a cross engraved at one point on its foot; this, I was taught, is the side from which the celebrant communicates himself and which should be presented to each subsequent communicant. Alcohol, I was told, is a natural disinfectant, and purificators spread germs rather than remove them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I really wish to canvass views about is whether others think that denial of the cup in current circumstances is high handed, hurtful and spiritually impoverishing or progressive and hygienically enlightened, and, therefore, justifiable, even though taken without consultation.
      1549

      Delete
    2. @ 1549:

      As a former 'insider' who's now an 'outsider', I may well not be entitled to a view; but when I was an 'insider' I'd have thought that denial of the chalice, especially if decided by unilateral clerical fiat, was quite definitely 'high handed, hurtful and spiritually impoverishing'.

      Primarily because, as you say,'both "elements" are needed for a full act of "communion"'; the notion that the Body and Blood of Christ is genuinely and wholly received by receiving in one kind only is in the end no more than an abstract theological speculation which does't justify departing from the command which the Church has always attributed tp Christ himself. At the very least it should only be done after careful debate.

      Matthew sums up what I also understood to be the usual 'line' on the practicalities of the chalice - except that I was given to understand that silver, as well as wine, is germicidal. One incumbent of my acquaintance used to deliver a periodic 'lipstick exhortation' as and when the problem seemed to arise. Issues of reverence were fortified by hygienic/aesthetic reinforcement, delivered via a full and graphic description of how oily lipstick accumulated as a scum floating on the top of the consecrated species!

      It seemed to work, though it needed to be reiterated from time to time. Not often, though - perhaps once every nine to twelve months.

      Delete
    3. Thanks John Ellis; I forgot to mention the silver part of the equation. Those unaware of the fact may like to know that Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church is administered by intinction; small pieces of the consecrated Bread (which is leavened) are put into the chalice after the consecration, and the priest places the combined species in the communicant's mouth by means of a gold or silver spoon.

      Delete
  13. The Bishop of St Davids must have been reading this blog. Today she emailed her clergy about this - advising against the kiss of peace and Communion in two kinds at present.
    Dominic

    ReplyDelete
  14. More effort should be given to ensure communion is received in both kinds. Pre-intinction by the priest of the wafers directly after consecration is one way. Often chaplaincies do this for their reserve sacrament. Another way is to do it Chapel style (tiny cups). Each church could have a supply of disposable ones for situations such as these. After all the 39 Articles require that communion is offered in both kinds. The Bishop of St David's has no right to instruct something to the contrary. It annoys me that she thinks that she can override without offering workable alternatives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Chapel style' strikes me as an impoverishment. The common chalice aleays seemed to me a further reiteration of 'We, being many, are one bread, one Body; because we all partake of the one bread'.

      Delete
    2. Better to receive in both kinds than in one even if the solution is not ideal.

      Whamab.

      Delete
  15. I thoroughly agree that there should be an alternative so long as it is hygienically responsible.
    1549

    ReplyDelete
  16. While you all debate this, we have LGBT clergy, gay marriage pending, a practising lesbian Bishop and a CinW in possible terminal decline. How can you spend time discussing the bread and wine when 95% of the population don't believe the Gospel in the first place?
    Loosemore

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What "bread and wine"? Do you mean the Holy Gifts of the Body and Blood of our Lord and God Jesus Christ?

      Delete
    2. Loosemore how can you spend time criticising those debating when 95% of the population don't believe? You're super spiritual virtue-signalling cuts no ice here I'm afraid.

      Whamab

      Delete
    3. "possible terminal decline"?
      Do you doubt the end of the Church in Wales is nigh?
      How much worse would it have to be before you would accept the inevitable?
      Any more of that Loosemore and you'll be elevated to the bench!

      Delete
    4. Reminder Anonymous. There are two members of the bench in a same sex 'relationship'. Only one is married. Same gender sex does not contribute towards divorce in UK law neither does Canon Law have coercive power within the Church in Wales. I'm sure you'll forgive the arrogance when we tell you to -" Do as we say not as we do".

      Sidney Evans

      Delete
    5. Who is the other - woman or man?
      Dominic

      Delete
    6. In order to be PC Dominic you should not refer to gender on this blog. There is "Neither male or female" any more. Shut that door.
      Larry Grayson.

      Delete
    7. But I don't want to be cursed PC.
      Dom

      Delete
    8. Good heavens, don't want to be a cursed PC? Where on earth is your atonement spirit zippy darling? Off with his head.
      Monmouth Tudor

      Delete
    9. Surely not two Welsh bishops in a same-sex relationship?
      Dom

      Delete
    10. Not two bishops in the same relationship (that would be something worth reporting!), but one bishopess with a lady companion, and (so it is alleged) one male bishop with a gentleman ditto. What can you expect from a generation reared on such enormities as "All you need is love love love love" as the postcommunion "hymn" at an event billed as a "Rock Mass"? (This was in otherwise stodgy Cheltenham, no less.)

      Delete
    11. In 1980, I should have added.

      Delete
    12. What was in 1980? A single incident/event?
      Dom

      Delete
    13. The event referred to in the post immediately above.

      Delete
    14. Rev Mother/ in God I present these candidates to you to be .......... What a shambles. Huw Llinos.

      Delete
  17. Because Christ instituted it! This sacrament is at the centre of his teaching. The ethical implications you mention follow from knowing him in prayer and sacamental presence.
    Rob

    ReplyDelete