Anglican, Catholic, and Muslim Representatives Estabilsh Global Freedom Network

http://www.news.va/en/news/global-freedom-network-founded-by-catholics-anglic

So, read the article if you would.

My thoughts are: Are we moving towards more cooperation between the Anglican church, the catholic church, and parts of the Muslim world? The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar is a major figure in the Sunni Muslim scope.

Obviously due to the de-centralized nature of Islam, this isn't 'all Muslims ever', but the position currently held by Ahmed el-Tayeb (whose track record is a little sketchy, especially in regards to, suprise, jews).

The Pope has also been taking a stance against corporate greed, and the organization is directly calling for corporations "to commit to eradicating slavery from their supply chains". \\

Multi-faith based things seem to be happening more often now, and a concrete organization put into existence by three major religions is a fairly hefty move on all three participants part.

What intrigues me most is the idea that they want to expand. Will they go further west to the American protestant churches, the orthodox churches to the east, and the Imams? Is this a genuine sign of better cooperation and understanding? And what of the Jews?

I'd not be surprised if this was a well meaning, but ultimately ineffectual campaign beyond being good PR.

As a Roman Catholic myself, I can tell you that both the Catholic and Anglican Church have grown somewhat close over the years. As for our relationship with Islam... to many people's surprise it's actually going pretty damn well. Catholics and Muslims are working more now than ever before, and the truly ironic thing is this seems to be causing people in the muslim community to differentiate between Catholics like myself and Protestants.

Granted, it probably helps that Richard: The Lionheart had some vague subtext goin' on with Saladin.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FoeRomanceSubtext

Regardless, I'm glad to see my faith is working with two others. Especially considering how much both of our churches disliked each other years ago. It's good, sign of progress at least ^.^

It's not so surprising, really. I don't know much about Anglicans, but both the theology of Catholics (outside of the US at least. Inside the US the Republican/FOX Conservative movement has gotten its corrupting tentacles into everything so Catholic theology is much more conflicted) and Muslims (excepting the tendency for the very wealthy to ignore what is inconvenient) is very focused on the needs of the poor, and there is little more exploitative to poor than trafficking.

I probably wouldn't go looking to see this expand though. There might be some common ground between the Catholic church and Muslims on sexual issues, but beyond that they're going to run out of things they agree on fast. There are liberal Protestant groups in the US, but they're too dominated by the Church of FOX Conservatives to get much agreement with any group Muslims are predominantly represented in.

As for Jews, well, I don't know enough about modern movements in Judaism to say. I've heard of much Jewish religious activism on behalf of other Jews, but I can't recall ever hearing about a group of religious Jewish activists (as opposed to secular Jewish activists) working to benefit needy goyim. Now I could easily be mistaken on that point if there are activist groups that name themselves in a way that doesn't expose themselves as Jewish for some reason, so I'm totally open to being schooled by anyone who knows better. But my impression is that recruiting religions, (Catholicism, Islam, LDS, Scientology) tend to concern themselves more with the needs of outsiders because that's the pool they want to draw their membership from, while religions connected to ethnic groups (Judaism, Hinduism, Shinto) tend to focus more on their local needs.

there are/have been a lot of "interfaith initiatives" over the years...

how effective any of them are...i couldn't say...which probably suggest "not much"...or they'd "make the news" and i'd hope i'd notice...

it's not all that surprising...especially when it comes to Anglicans/Catholics cooperating as one is basically a skism of the other...caused by one man...who just happened to be absolute monarch...and who declared himself "mini pope" because the real one wouldn't give him a divorce...point being the creation of The Anglican Church was never an ideologically driven grass roots Protestant "reformation"...they are basically "out of the fold", wishy washy Catholics with a surrogate/fake Pope...and the Catholics actually have a "fast track" system in place now (put in place by the last Pope) for taking clergy and even full Anglican congregations back into bosom of "the mother church"...because structurally/theologically they are still basically the same ting.

as for America...well US churches are more about being in business/politics like competition with each other...so i doubt "ecumenical movements"/"interfaith initiatives" have...very fertile soil in which to take seed...

Sleekit:
as for America...well US churches are more about being in business/politics like competition with each other...so i doubt "ecumenical movements"/"interfaith initiatives" have...very fertile soil in which to take seed...

I tend to disagree. I think it depends on the situation. It probably depends on what region and which denominations in particular are involved.
My community has a pretty good inter-faith fellowship going between all the various christian denominations, as well as the Jewish congregation in town. I can't say much concerning the local muslim population, as they're very new and very few. There may be some resistance to letting them in to the "club" but I can't imagine it would last.

I'm sure some places and churches would be more hesitant than others, but no church wants to be labeled "that one that refuses to play nice with the other kids," and no one wants to feel left out, either.

Captcha: Worship nothing. Srly, captcha? -_-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmR3jTY1dxM

A press conference held by the representatives of the various heads of their respective churches.

I'm putting this up now but can't comment on it due to having to get ready to work, but for your viewing. I'll give it a look over when I get home and either reply to my own post or edit this.

Also, isn't the queen the de jure head of the anglican church? Or the reigning monarch, in any case.

Also, I shold have put this in earlier, there is a wealthy backer to all this.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-editorial/andrew-forrests-inspiring-role-in-fight-against-slavery-20140318-35087.html

Andrew Forrests. Again, don't have a ton of time to go over the article, but to my knowledge he's an australian billionaire philanthropist who is the driver behind getting the GFN set up.

And according to this article the Imam has spoken a fatwa on the issue. That's also interesting.

http://theconversation.com/the-global-freedom-network-reminds-us-that-with-acts-of-faith-comes-responsibility-24557

I link this because because of about halfway down the post the author brings up a good point, which is that this is a sign of both the cathoilc and anglican churches rejecting one of Saint Pauls (and early peter epistles) statements regarding slavery.

"The risk taken by these Catholic, Anglican and Muslim leaders is this. If people of faith acknowledge that sacred texts on slavery continue to be widely used as justifications for great evil, must we also require a further acknowledgement, that sacred texts on many other topics require careful, critical interpretation to avoid other great evils?"

I mean, obviously unlike the American fundamentalist movement the catholic church and by much extension the anglican church have never been 'what the bible says is absolute truth', but it does still bring a very interesting idea up of critical thinking regarding holy text in modern context.

Bentusi16:

Also, isn't the queen the de jure head of the anglican church? Or the reigning monarch, in any case.

ye the Queen is reigning "mini pope"...Supreme Governor of the C of E,"By the Grace of God","Defender of THE Faith", titular head formally above the Archbishop of Canterbury as Primate etc, etc

Charles on the other hand apparently doesn't want the job.

supposedly he would rather be conferred the title "Defender of Faith" upon his coronation...
...which, although admirable from a certain pov, is no doubt a MAJOR headache for the C of E blokes in funny hats...

Bentusi16:

I mean, obviously unlike the American fundamentalist movement the catholic church and by much extension the anglican church have never been 'what the bible says is absolute truth', but it does still bring a very interesting idea up of critical thinking regarding holy text in modern context.

Well, I think part of the benefits of being catholic is that we consider the pope not only the head of the church, but the papacy itself is the unbroken succession from St. Peter himself. In a sense, the pope could stand on equal moral authority with some of the earlier leaders of the church such as St. Peter and Paul since he is technically acting as their successor.

I also know it probably wouldn't be too difficult for Muslims to accept the anti-slavery thing considering that the Prophet Muhammad apparently asked his followers to buy slaves for the express purpose of freeing them and actually said that anyone who frees a (Muslim) Slave essentially saved every ounce of their body from hell.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked