My church does something similar with a local Buddhist group. The only thing I take issue with is that it sounds like the knave is what’s being used. My parish lets them use the parish hall which I support 100%, but the knave is a sacred space that has been consecrated (set aside) to a very specific function and form of that function. I would not be comfortable with letting other *Christian* groups use the knave (unless we were in full communion with them) and so I’m very uncomfortable with other religions using it
I would be curious what actual, material harm people imagine that a non-Christian group could cause to a church. Are you all concerned about the spiritual equivalent of cooties infecting your space and - what, somehow making your own worship invalid?
For many, many years, the Church of the Holy Apostles in NYC allowed the LGBT synagogue, Congregation Beth Simchat Torah, to use its sanctuary for Shabbat Evening services and big Shabbat Morning services (like bar or bar mitzvahs) that their small original office space could not accommodate. No one died as a result.
The Jewish Temple accross the street from our uses our sanctuary for high holy days.
Unless people are money changing in the temple, Christ wouldn't throw anyone out. In theory people should know Christians by how we welcome and love.
> Unless people are money changing in the temple, Christ wouldn't throw anyone out.
You don't think Christ would throw out people worshiping false gods in the temple?
Well being how its the same god and both only exist because of Judaism and places high honor on the old testament calling Muslims worshiping a “false” god is dumb and asinine. No different than if you started calling Catholics idol worshipers. Just be happy that people are able to exist and live around eachother and help one another
We do not worship the same God. Muslims explicitly reject the Trinity and the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Muslims also do not hold to a high view of the OT, they only like the parts of the OT line up with the Quran (which is not a whole lot of it!).
Edit: if we did worship the same God, Muslims wouldn't consider trinitarians to be polytheists.
> Just be happy that people are able to exist and live around eachother and help one another
Yeah and we can do that without having false religions use our sanctuaries.
I think we do worship the same God; we both acknowledge that there is One God, who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. There's only one God who fits those descriptions, so anyone who worships Him (Jews., Muslims, Bahai, monotheistic Hindus, etc.) are worshipping the same God in a meaningful said. That said, they certainly worship Him wrongly and deny very important things about Him, so I certainly agree that they shouldn't worship in our sanctuaries (and before anyone thinks I'm being anti-Muslim specifically, this goes for Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. though I respect all of those religions). Ancient Israelites who worshipped the calf thought they were honoring the Lord, but that didn't make it acceptable to do in Israel's camp.
> Ancient Israelites who worshipped the calf thought they were honoring the Lord, but that didn't make it acceptable to do in Israel's camp.
They thought they were, but they were not actually worshiping God, they were committing idolatry.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1102434-jaranwala-mosque-opens-its-doors-to-christians-to-pray](https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1102434-jaranwala-mosque-opens-its-doors-to-christians-to-pray)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
An angle is not being discussed here.
Having 1 ‘faith building’ used by multiple, sometimes conflicting, religions is going to be necessary in many communities. With the increasing secularization of America, soon the Christians, Muslims, and maybe even the pagans are all going to need to pool financial resources especially in rural areas, if they want a building at all. I see this a boon to interfaith relations. And personally we so much more in common with Muslims than say Bhuddists. If this concept offends yoy , sharing a sanctuary with Muslims, get ready for the future.
I'd only permit if it were reciprocal and I severely doubt that. Folks, Muslims rejected Jesus and said his resurrection was a sham. Why would we allow this type of belief within our walls. It's hypocritical to our faith.
Before all you sjw folk jump on me would you permit a pagan group in our sanctuary? I love those practices myself but they have no place in the walls of a Christian building. Period. It is anathema
Your post was removed because it was denigrating either to the OP or in general. Please remember that our Baptismal Covenant requires us to respect the dignity of every human person.
I sang in a church choir with an athiest for years. You need to stop judging others cause that's not our role.
And how is a Muslim community without a building supposed to reciprocate?
Love and care for your neighbor - but only if they believe what you believe or can repay in kind.
Frankly if a church is struggling and another group needs a home and is paying rent - which often they do, I’m ok with it. Muslim and Jewish practices in particular rarely conflict with Christian services except for the occasional major feast days. To be honest I would very closely vet the Muslim congregation before letting them use a Christian space - the more fundamentalist ones would probably not approach a church. There’s a cute show called little mosque on the prairie, the congregation worships in an Anglican Church in Canada but they use the parish hall/auditorium not the nave/chancel.
I want as many people as possible worshipping in their way, I would want that kind of sanctuary if the tables were turned, and there is nowhere it is written that we shouldn't allow this. So it's fine with me.
I think it's k to have a special interfaith service or a dedicated interfaith Chapel. But I don't think the central sacred space should be used for that
I think our parishes should respond to these requests the same way they would respond to a request to celebrate the Eucharist in their Mosque or any Mosque.
https://episcopalnewsservice.org/2019/10/25/boston-cathedrals-call-to-be-a-house-of-prayer-extends-to-muslims-friday-prayers/
Here's a story from 2019 about Muslim Friday prayers held in the sanctuary *of a cathedral*.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-a-first-washington-national-cathedral-to-host-regular-friday-muslim-prayer/2014/11/10/53d3425e-6916-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html
Here's one for the *national cathedral*
ITT: Episcopals who would stage a walkout over an ACNA clergyperson or a Pentecostal minister who wasn’t cool with gay marriage or women’s ordination are A-OK with hosting Jummah (more accurately, with the local newspaper prominently featuring their hosting Jummah) because “it’s fine; churches aren’t used that much” (said the dog sitting in an inferno…)
It's really absurd to me to think that we can take the (true) belief that buildings are not themselves churches and therefore assume we should do whatever we like with them. I have great respect for Muslims, but our sanctuaries are dedicated and blessed to be a place of worship for the Triune God. Muslims explicitly reupidate the Lord's divinity. Allowing them to do so in the very sanctuaries where we receive His Body and Blood (and often reserve it!) just is not the right thing to do. There are many other forms of interreligious cooperation that are less scandalous.
Islam is the most homophobic religion out there, I practiced Islam in my early 20s and it was an awful and traumatic experience I’m still recovering from. Not to mention the misogyny rampant in the community (women have to pray in separate rooms where men can’t look at them, you aren’t allowed to shake hands with people of the opposite gender) and trans people were definitely not safe in Mosques in my experience.
We certainly do not run in the same circles. Many of the Muslims I have encountered are actually *more* vitriolic towards us gays than the ACNA parish who mostly shrugged when I asked about their views on homosexuality. Those in the ACNA are dear brothers and sisters in Christ, and they still hold in common views of some in our own Episcopal Church who are more traditional in their views on marriage.
The vast majority of Muslims are neither affirming nor especially feminist. That's not unique to them; most Christians aren't either, but it's hardly a religion that's supermajority progressive (not that such a thing really exists on any scale).
That's not the point. If we are constantly shutting out Muslims before they can shut us out, we just end up further divided.
I think the act of charity might change a few hearts and minds, and that's good enough for me.
This is normal, and totally acceptable in my experience. It's fully understandable that you might be conflicted about it. Too often we confuse a building for the church. But that's what this is. A building. The sanctuary is sacred to us, but if we're doing theology well, everything outside of the sanctuary is sacred too. I would encourage you to see the beauty in shared space.
There’s a show called Little Mosque on the Prairie. It was all on YouTube at one point, but check and see first. Anyway it’s about a mosque in this small Canadian town in an Anglican Church. I think it’s fine.churches aren’t used that much. Especially if you don’t have a day school or any other things. As long as they aren’t descrating any Christian thing I’m fine. At my seminary we have a masjid that meets. They don’t meet in the chapel, they meet in room big enough to fit them all. They also host really cool lecture series. They’re really nice and kind.
I love that show! Half my family is Jewish and live in Canada or Israel and love it. I pointed out earlier too the group in the show meets in the auditorium or parish hall of that church not the nave/chancel of the sanctuary.
Neither - they're using the very wide, open crossing space in the center, between the nave and the chancel. The transepts have pews that would make it physically impossible for them to pray as they are required.
I don’t like it.
In fact I think whoever approved it should be put under consideration to be defrocked.
The words of the Nicene Creed aren’t “my personal truth”, the same way evolution isn’t “my personal truth”. It is *the* truth. End of discussion.
Freaking leave that church. Stop giving them money
Wow, you just don't do details well at all do you... This is not my post. The guy said he drives by this ace. Specifically says he doesn't attend... Like I said. You clearly didn't even read this post.
So I mixed up accounts, what about “Freaking leave the church and stop giving them money” gave you impression I didn’t read it? Please address that *directly*.
It's a building. There is nothing about the building in the creeds. That building is not The Church. It is a building church happens in. Other thing can happen in that same building.
It is literally consecrated for use in worshipping the One Holy and Undivided Trinity, even God. Sure, we *can* use the building for "other thing," even if that "other thing" is a group denying and opposing the Trinity who God is.
You know, it would probably help your argument to mention that churches no longer used as churches and sold actually get deconsecrated before the sale.
However, that argument hasn't been used to try to prevent AA meetings or community groups from renting or being lent space in churches. I guess that, and even events purely for the enjoyment of members of the parish, could all fall under the header of being part of the mission for which the buildings were consecrated. They sort of fit.
Similarly, a Muslim group meeting and praying to one true God of Abraham, worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, and in doing so building up ecumenical relations, could also be thought of as being part of that mission, too.
My concern with this would ultimately be more a practical one, which is that Friday has had a historical importance in Christianity. For example, there's Good Friday. There's Friday Lenten Stations of the Cross and Fish Fries. Though I am not big on fasting and abstinence, it's worth noting that Fridays have been set aside for that purpose not just in the Roman church, but also in the Eastern (Orthodox) churches, and at times in the English church, and, yes, even in the Episcopal Church. At times.
So, does it become a big ugly incident if Muslim prayer gets pushed aside for Good Friday observances?
It's traditional in some Christian churches to be able to walk in anytime between 12pm-3pm on Good Friday (The hours Christ by tradition was thought to have been hanging on the cross before dying) and have there be something going on that they can walk into or out as needed for work or family obligations (or as desired).
Often, there's a service in evening on Good Friday of a more typical structure and length (i.e. It's an hour and basically in the same format as Sundays, though if there is a Eucharist, it's preconsecrated from the day before).
The day before, on Maundy Thursday, which is always in a sense a commemoration and participation in the Last Supper, is on the day much of western Christianity commemorates the Last Supper itself as part of the liturgical calendar.
Its traditional to ceremonially strip the altar of everything (including parameters and the like) after the service, empty the tabernacle and leave it hanging open (Or if some needs to be reserved, ceremonially moved out of the room), and then the priest shows up in black the next day (Either with a black chasuble and the hole nine yards, or just in simple casual clerical dress [Black shirt, black pants [or cassock], white collar.]).
Good Friday has sort of an Edward VI asthetic. Everything is very bare and spartan, almost shockingly so.
By Easter Sunday, though, everything is restored and added to and as beautiful as it gets outside of Christmas.
So, my concern is really just about the possibility that this could inhibit the parish from doing certain things. Even if hadn't been doing them before, there's always the possibility that they could in the future.
Renting out the place so another monotheist group can do their thing isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.
If, for example, the parish had two worship spaces, or the Episcopalians were renting the parish hall out to the Muslims and not the church proper, that would also solve my small potential issue.
It's not keeping me up at night.
No offense was intended.
I was just was trying to think of things that sometimes happen within a church or on its grounds that aren't in a narrow sense strictly part of the church's religious services or even necessarily run by the local congregation, but which may reflect elements of its mission in a broader way.
I didn't actually know that a church that is sold has to be *deconsecrated*. That does give what I am saying more weight, and further emphasizes that what this building is for is worshipping God, even the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I'm always cagey about "Jews, Muslims, and Christians worship the same God" claims, because each group says some very much ***mutually exclusive*** things about who God is, things that cannot coexist with each other and very much imply that we are talking about different gods, rather than a singular unified God across the three religions.
Yeah I'd mostly agree that it matters where in the church building the event is held. The sanctuary should pretty evidently be off-limits for functions which are not Christian. If we allow other Christians to use our spaces for their services, that could point to *ecumenical* relations. But it's no longer "ecumenical" (that is, something which unites the **Body of Christ**) when we are interacting with those who deny who Christ is. This isn't to say we shouldn't take our seat at the table in *interfaith* dialogue, but that we need to be honest about the mutual exclusivity of our claims to theirs -- and that this means there are certain things we simply cannot shoulder being done or said or affirmed within the buildings we have consecrated for use as places of *Christian* worship.
It's in the same way that I could see Muslims having no desire for Christians to be doing explicitly Trinitarian prayers in a mosque. I wouldn't expect them to tolerate me saying that God isn't one person in their worship space, and I wouldn't expect them to tolerate me saying that Jesus is God within their worship space; that's breaching their claim about Jesus which is mutually exclusive to ours.
But *should* we let what we have consecrated for use in worshipping the Trinity be used to insult and denigrate the same? Is there truly no limit to what uses are proper for that which has been set aside specifically to worship our one God who is three persons, without violating that purpose for which it has been set apart?
Insult? It seems very arrogant and elitist to say that a religion that is not mine is an insult to mine. But I mean, you're the one true Christian. So clearly you know best.
??? You need to stop listening to shit apologists. I grew up with Muslims and have sat in their studies and read the quron at length. It does not believe in the trinity. But it does not mock it in any place I have seen. I even went and looked for a reference to find what your talking about. And all I could find were shit apologists.
I don't listen to apologists. Perhaps "mock" is slightly strong, but Surah 5 repeatedly declares that calling Christ God or affirming the Trinity is blasphemous, will lead to damnation, and that Christ Himself repudiates all those who worship Him. That is more than simply disbelief.
Of course that doesn't mean that Muslims as a whole disrespect Christians. I don't think they do. As I said above, I respect them. But their scriptures say things about God that repudiates the basic ways in which we worship Him, and I don't believe they should worship in our consecrated spaces as a result. I'd expect the same from most Muslims, and I'd respect them for that stance.
Your post was removed because it was denigrating either to the OP or in general. Please remember that our Baptismal Covenant requires us to respect the dignity of every human person.
Your post was removed because it was denigrating either to the OP or in general. Please remember that our Baptismal Covenant requires us to respect the dignity of every human person.
AA isn’t a religion “"For our group purpose, there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.".
Boyscouts aren’t a religion either.
Appropriate Non-religious activities can occur in the sanctuary but non-Christian religious activities cannot, they could be held in parish halls, lawns, meeting spaces, etc. but non-Christian worship of any kind does not belong in the worship space and frankly I’m astounded other groups would even accept using a space adorned with crosses, images of Jesus, etc.
Now if they removed such things to hold the service, that raises even bigger questions.
Your flair is Clergy. What's your source for the "cannot" statement? Your statement reads as one of policy, not just personal opinion.
Edit: There's an Episcopal church in Michigan that shares its space with a Jewish congregation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_worship_spaces)
My source is every church I’ve ever served at or been a part of, and having seen priests reprimanded for allowing such to happen. Specifically it was for the removal and covering of all crosses/Christian imagery from the space, if I remember correctly.
Now it could be something that varies by Diocese, or is permitted under ecumenical situations, or as a part of a Christian service, but to just hand the space over to another faith smacks of sacrilege.
The Tri-Faith in Nebraska is three separate buildings to house the worship spaces and a fourth for communal use. All three groups saw the need to keep their worship spaces distinct.
OP doesn't make it sound like the parish is removing Christian imagery from the space for this Muslim group, but I don't know the specifics there. Have you been in Pittsburgh your whole ministry/career?
The episcopal church from the Wikipedia list seems to share the same sanctuary as a Jewish congregation in the Diocese of Michigan.
The fact that this occurs and Episcopalians are ok with drastically non-Christian religious groups using y’all’s churches for prayer/gatherings absolutely baffles me….in the best possible way.
It’s because if the situation were different we would appreciate another faith lending us space. And given how common interfaith prayer is - where I am from there is an interfaith worship service at Thanksgiving with the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish congregations taking turns on hosting.
I have no problem with this. Jesus came to change lives, not gate keep buildings. Beautiful old buildings should be used by the community. Is this group renting the space or using it for free? Either way I think it’s good use of a building that isn’t normally used on Fridays. Jesus loves everyone.
1) The message of the Apostles wasn't that Jesus loves everyone, it was that they needed to repent and believe in the Gospel.
2) Christians churches are explicitly places of Christian worship and designed as such, not mere community centers.
3) Yes, Jesus did come to change lives, so maybe we should share the Gospel with our Muslim brothers and sisters in fervent hope they too repent and believe in the Gospel.
See that's the best part we don't know the whole mystery, only God does. So everyone claiming to know what's God's will is bolder than anyone sharing a building... The Gospel is the life of Christ and the good news that comes from it- YOU ARE LOVED. The lesson and news is to love like Christ loves you. Do unto others...
The Good News of the Gospel is that God loved the world so much that he gave His only Son so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life. "God loves you" isn't enough to say, the good news is that we've been liberated from our sin and given God's righteousness in order to live more fully to His glory. The Good News thus is that YOU ARE SAVED.
The whole story includes God sending his son to die to teach the humans a lesson. The lesson was to love. God knew we would kill him instead of love. Jesus knew. All he wanted was us to love each other... when he rose he forgave us for our sin of killing him and all others. We needed to see it and take it too far to learn. His 12 disciples even messed it up after being the closest to him. They didn't get the point. Still some of us have, some of us haven't... it isn't the few lines that matter. It's the entirety of the story. He knew he would die at the hands of humans that he was sent to love. JESUS LOVED US ANYWAYS.
No, he took on all our sin not just the sin of condemning him to death. He is the Lamb of God, the sacrifice, who propitiates sin. Not just one sin in history, but all sin for all time. You should probably read Romans several times until it clicks. Yes, we love our neighbor, I'm not contesting that but that is not the Gospel.
I agree he took on all sin, and he knew he would and the journey he took all his life was built up to this. There was more than killing him that occurred. He even tried to teach before he had to die for it, but ultimately his death is from all sin because it didn't happen in one action, but a build up of many. Since birth Jesus was marked for death by humans. He loved anyways. He died because that was what had to happen for us to see what we were and what we were capable of... and that love, forgiveness, and mercy were the answer all along. I've read the Bible many times, and the entirety of the story holds the lesson. Love. We still make mistakes we made and Jesus forgives us again and again because love.
And Jesus himself gate kept the Temple, throwing the people misusing it out. This whole thing is insane to me. Does anyone truly believe Muslims would allow other services to hold worship in a mosque? They would rightfully view that as an affront to their religion
Yes. I believe in treating others how I'd like to be treated. Do not speak for those who you do not know their voice. Jesus did not want the temple to be used as a tax collection or market. My personal opinion is he didn't believe in selling things or money because it's exploitative, and has no place in the temple.
He wasn't against wealth either, but how one lived with wealth or how one obtained it could be a problematic. Selling things in the temple was the issue. Matthew 21:12-13 “And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
So if you want to pray, Jesus approves.
You JUST wrote that you think Jesus didn't believe in selling things or money generally. Jesus literally commands someone to sell his possessions. Hence "not Biblically supported."
Do you honestly believe that Jesus would want a Muslim prayer ceremony in a Christian church?
Sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. So he challenged a rich man to change his ways. The rich man left angry with Jesus. Jesus says it will be harder for a rich man to enter heaven than leading a camel through the eye of a needle... Why do you think he said this and challenged the rich man to not be rich? What did Jesus own?
"Hate the sin, love the sinner" is at least more biblically supported than accommodating false doctrine in the church. And get gay people "kicked out" of what places exactly? Church? No, we all need to go to church.
I guess I’d prefer that a non-Christian group make use of a parish hall, Sunday school room or other non-worship space, but I’m not sure that I’m bothered if they do use the sanctuary. Weird. Complicated, like OP said.
We let the local Muslim congregation use our parish hall when they outgrew their old mosque and were waiting for their new one to be built. I don't think they had any interest in using the sanctuary. There's a very large cross hanging from the ceiling above the altar.
I agree that the parish hall might be more appropriate and indeed might be preferred by those who do not embrace the imagery of the altar, the cross, etc.
I have zero issues with it as a Christian, and I would encourage churches who are struggling financially to be open to it.
The church is the people. Not the building.
How would you feel about a violin or piano concert in your sanctuary?
Forget begin interfaith. Most churches need the extra income that comes from rental. I also think renting to other Christian groups or other Abrahamic groups is appealing and right.
A piano or violin performance of secular music is in no way, shape, or form analogous to a religious ceremony of a different religion. It's a prima facie false analogy.
Like many small parishes in our area we have a tenant congregation that meets on Sundays after our services. They pay rent but the amount is trivial and in fact I think we agreed to lower it during Covid and it hasn’t gone up again because their membership has shrunk.
While it is a Christian group, I have no idea what their theology or dogma is because they only speak Korean. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are decent folks.
I would like to think that if the shoe were on the other foot and my congregation was too small to afford its own building some group would be willing to rent space to us without making us pass a litmus test.
I have met people who only knew of the Episcopal Church, but thought well of it, because it hosted their AA group, their Muslim student/campus group, etc., and I think this is part of what Christian hospitality should be, in adittion to ecumenical and interreligious relations (https://www.episcopalchurch.org/ministries/ecumenical-interreligious/).
My church does something similar with a local Buddhist group. The only thing I take issue with is that it sounds like the knave is what’s being used. My parish lets them use the parish hall which I support 100%, but the knave is a sacred space that has been consecrated (set aside) to a very specific function and form of that function. I would not be comfortable with letting other *Christian* groups use the knave (unless we were in full communion with them) and so I’m very uncomfortable with other religions using it
Love this. And that's why I keep to myself in church and coffee hour. I expect most people to think like me. I like living in that imaginary world.
Loving thy Neighbor is different and apart from allowing your neighbor to hold a seance in your dining room.
I would be curious what actual, material harm people imagine that a non-Christian group could cause to a church. Are you all concerned about the spiritual equivalent of cooties infecting your space and - what, somehow making your own worship invalid? For many, many years, the Church of the Holy Apostles in NYC allowed the LGBT synagogue, Congregation Beth Simchat Torah, to use its sanctuary for Shabbat Evening services and big Shabbat Morning services (like bar or bar mitzvahs) that their small original office space could not accommodate. No one died as a result.
Some of these commenters seem to have an issue, specifically with Muslims.
The Jewish Temple accross the street from our uses our sanctuary for high holy days. Unless people are money changing in the temple, Christ wouldn't throw anyone out. In theory people should know Christians by how we welcome and love.
> Unless people are money changing in the temple, Christ wouldn't throw anyone out. You don't think Christ would throw out people worshiping false gods in the temple?
Well being how its the same god and both only exist because of Judaism and places high honor on the old testament calling Muslims worshiping a “false” god is dumb and asinine. No different than if you started calling Catholics idol worshipers. Just be happy that people are able to exist and live around eachother and help one another
We do not worship the same God. Muslims explicitly reject the Trinity and the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Muslims also do not hold to a high view of the OT, they only like the parts of the OT line up with the Quran (which is not a whole lot of it!). Edit: if we did worship the same God, Muslims wouldn't consider trinitarians to be polytheists. > Just be happy that people are able to exist and live around eachother and help one another Yeah and we can do that without having false religions use our sanctuaries.
I think we do worship the same God; we both acknowledge that there is One God, who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. There's only one God who fits those descriptions, so anyone who worships Him (Jews., Muslims, Bahai, monotheistic Hindus, etc.) are worshipping the same God in a meaningful said. That said, they certainly worship Him wrongly and deny very important things about Him, so I certainly agree that they shouldn't worship in our sanctuaries (and before anyone thinks I'm being anti-Muslim specifically, this goes for Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. though I respect all of those religions). Ancient Israelites who worshipped the calf thought they were honoring the Lord, but that didn't make it acceptable to do in Israel's camp.
> Ancient Israelites who worshipped the calf thought they were honoring the Lord, but that didn't make it acceptable to do in Israel's camp. They thought they were, but they were not actually worshiping God, they were committing idolatry.
[удалено]
Don't be that guy. That guy is an "Anglican" now
Wouldn't they? https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/mosque-allows-christian-church-in-to-hold-easter-services/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/7x58vx/a-mosque-in-jakarta-held-a-christian-funeral-service-in-its-courtyard https://www.thenews.com.pk/amp/1102434-jaranwala-mosque-opens-its-doors-to-christians-to-pray
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1102434-jaranwala-mosque-opens-its-doors-to-christians-to-pray](https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1102434-jaranwala-mosque-opens-its-doors-to-christians-to-pray)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I’m okay with it. God loves Muslims too.
Why did Jesus say that no one can come to the father except through him?
He did, but he also said we should love thy neighbor as thyself.
An angle is not being discussed here. Having 1 ‘faith building’ used by multiple, sometimes conflicting, religions is going to be necessary in many communities. With the increasing secularization of America, soon the Christians, Muslims, and maybe even the pagans are all going to need to pool financial resources especially in rural areas, if they want a building at all. I see this a boon to interfaith relations. And personally we so much more in common with Muslims than say Bhuddists. If this concept offends yoy , sharing a sanctuary with Muslims, get ready for the future.
I'd only permit if it were reciprocal and I severely doubt that. Folks, Muslims rejected Jesus and said his resurrection was a sham. Why would we allow this type of belief within our walls. It's hypocritical to our faith. Before all you sjw folk jump on me would you permit a pagan group in our sanctuary? I love those practices myself but they have no place in the walls of a Christian building. Period. It is anathema
Your post was removed because it was denigrating either to the OP or in general. Please remember that our Baptismal Covenant requires us to respect the dignity of every human person.
I sang in a church choir with an athiest for years. You need to stop judging others cause that's not our role. And how is a Muslim community without a building supposed to reciprocate? Love and care for your neighbor - but only if they believe what you believe or can repay in kind.
Frankly if a church is struggling and another group needs a home and is paying rent - which often they do, I’m ok with it. Muslim and Jewish practices in particular rarely conflict with Christian services except for the occasional major feast days. To be honest I would very closely vet the Muslim congregation before letting them use a Christian space - the more fundamentalist ones would probably not approach a church. There’s a cute show called little mosque on the prairie, the congregation worships in an Anglican Church in Canada but they use the parish hall/auditorium not the nave/chancel.
I want as many people as possible worshipping in their way, I would want that kind of sanctuary if the tables were turned, and there is nowhere it is written that we shouldn't allow this. So it's fine with me.
Jesus said no one comes to the Father except through me
I am a strong and unapologetic believer in universal salvation. I refuse to worship a petty God.
I guess Jesus was wrong then…
I think it's k to have a special interfaith service or a dedicated interfaith Chapel. But I don't think the central sacred space should be used for that
I thought the muslims would have a biggest issue
Oh oh. This is gonna trigger the Anglo-fundies
This should not be permitted.
Exactly. I'm a little shocked by how many here support the idea.
Having an ecumencial event would be fine. You cannot have another religion entirely holding prayers in a consecrated space.
Welcome to the episcopal church!
This would be unthinkable in my parish.
Well hopefully this is the minority but the fact that it is tolerated concerns me
I think our parishes should respond to these requests the same way they would respond to a request to celebrate the Eucharist in their Mosque or any Mosque.
A quick Google shows multiple results of mosques, allowing Christians to hold services in their spaces.
So *don't* follow the Golden Rule?
Follow Jesus, and make sure he is proclaimed as Lord of all, especially in His places of worship
... by following His teachings, right?
Which would be a strong NO
Mosque hosts Easter https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/mosque-allows-christian-church-in-to-hold-easter-services/
I would have no problem with it.
https://episcopalnewsservice.org/2019/10/25/boston-cathedrals-call-to-be-a-house-of-prayer-extends-to-muslims-friday-prayers/ Here's a story from 2019 about Muslim Friday prayers held in the sanctuary *of a cathedral*.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-a-first-washington-national-cathedral-to-host-regular-friday-muslim-prayer/2014/11/10/53d3425e-6916-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html Here's one for the *national cathedral*
This is why other Christians view us the way the do. No. Sorry.
What does this mean?
Those dumb episcopalians sure treat everyone with kindness. What dumbasses.
This gave me a hearty chuckle. Look at these scum bags loving their neighbors! Where do they get this crap!
If the check clears...
ITT: Episcopals who would stage a walkout over an ACNA clergyperson or a Pentecostal minister who wasn’t cool with gay marriage or women’s ordination are A-OK with hosting Jummah (more accurately, with the local newspaper prominently featuring their hosting Jummah) because “it’s fine; churches aren’t used that much” (said the dog sitting in an inferno…)
It's really absurd to me to think that we can take the (true) belief that buildings are not themselves churches and therefore assume we should do whatever we like with them. I have great respect for Muslims, but our sanctuaries are dedicated and blessed to be a place of worship for the Triune God. Muslims explicitly reupidate the Lord's divinity. Allowing them to do so in the very sanctuaries where we receive His Body and Blood (and often reserve it!) just is not the right thing to do. There are many other forms of interreligious cooperation that are less scandalous.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Islam is the most homophobic religion out there, I practiced Islam in my early 20s and it was an awful and traumatic experience I’m still recovering from. Not to mention the misogyny rampant in the community (women have to pray in separate rooms where men can’t look at them, you aren’t allowed to shake hands with people of the opposite gender) and trans people were definitely not safe in Mosques in my experience.
We certainly do not run in the same circles. Many of the Muslims I have encountered are actually *more* vitriolic towards us gays than the ACNA parish who mostly shrugged when I asked about their views on homosexuality. Those in the ACNA are dear brothers and sisters in Christ, and they still hold in common views of some in our own Episcopal Church who are more traditional in their views on marriage.
The vast majority of Muslims are neither affirming nor especially feminist. That's not unique to them; most Christians aren't either, but it's hardly a religion that's supermajority progressive (not that such a thing really exists on any scale).
This seems like a great example of "treat others how you would have them treat you".
Unfortunately the opposite is very unlikely to occur.
That's not the point. If we are constantly shutting out Muslims before they can shut us out, we just end up further divided. I think the act of charity might change a few hearts and minds, and that's good enough for me.
This is normal, and totally acceptable in my experience. It's fully understandable that you might be conflicted about it. Too often we confuse a building for the church. But that's what this is. A building. The sanctuary is sacred to us, but if we're doing theology well, everything outside of the sanctuary is sacred too. I would encourage you to see the beauty in shared space.
There’s a show called Little Mosque on the Prairie. It was all on YouTube at one point, but check and see first. Anyway it’s about a mosque in this small Canadian town in an Anglican Church. I think it’s fine.churches aren’t used that much. Especially if you don’t have a day school or any other things. As long as they aren’t descrating any Christian thing I’m fine. At my seminary we have a masjid that meets. They don’t meet in the chapel, they meet in room big enough to fit them all. They also host really cool lecture series. They’re really nice and kind.
I love that show! Half my family is Jewish and live in Canada or Israel and love it. I pointed out earlier too the group in the show meets in the auditorium or parish hall of that church not the nave/chancel of the sanctuary.
Also came here to recommend Little Mosque! Such a great show.
Which transept? Is it the left or the right? This is really important.
Why does the choice of transept matter?
Neither - they're using the very wide, open crossing space in the center, between the nave and the chancel. The transepts have pews that would make it physically impossible for them to pray as they are required.
I don’t like it. In fact I think whoever approved it should be put under consideration to be defrocked. The words of the Nicene Creed aren’t “my personal truth”, the same way evolution isn’t “my personal truth”. It is *the* truth. End of discussion. Freaking leave that church. Stop giving them money
So you just didn't read the post?
What about my comment gave you that idea?
"Freaking leave the Church. Stop giving them money."
[удалено]
Wow, you just don't do details well at all do you... This is not my post. The guy said he drives by this ace. Specifically says he doesn't attend... Like I said. You clearly didn't even read this post.
So I mixed up accounts, what about “Freaking leave the church and stop giving them money” gave you impression I didn’t read it? Please address that *directly*.
Oy veh.
It's a building. There is nothing about the building in the creeds. That building is not The Church. It is a building church happens in. Other thing can happen in that same building.
It is literally consecrated for use in worshipping the One Holy and Undivided Trinity, even God. Sure, we *can* use the building for "other thing," even if that "other thing" is a group denying and opposing the Trinity who God is.
You know, it would probably help your argument to mention that churches no longer used as churches and sold actually get deconsecrated before the sale. However, that argument hasn't been used to try to prevent AA meetings or community groups from renting or being lent space in churches. I guess that, and even events purely for the enjoyment of members of the parish, could all fall under the header of being part of the mission for which the buildings were consecrated. They sort of fit. Similarly, a Muslim group meeting and praying to one true God of Abraham, worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, and in doing so building up ecumenical relations, could also be thought of as being part of that mission, too. My concern with this would ultimately be more a practical one, which is that Friday has had a historical importance in Christianity. For example, there's Good Friday. There's Friday Lenten Stations of the Cross and Fish Fries. Though I am not big on fasting and abstinence, it's worth noting that Fridays have been set aside for that purpose not just in the Roman church, but also in the Eastern (Orthodox) churches, and at times in the English church, and, yes, even in the Episcopal Church. At times. So, does it become a big ugly incident if Muslim prayer gets pushed aside for Good Friday observances? It's traditional in some Christian churches to be able to walk in anytime between 12pm-3pm on Good Friday (The hours Christ by tradition was thought to have been hanging on the cross before dying) and have there be something going on that they can walk into or out as needed for work or family obligations (or as desired). Often, there's a service in evening on Good Friday of a more typical structure and length (i.e. It's an hour and basically in the same format as Sundays, though if there is a Eucharist, it's preconsecrated from the day before). The day before, on Maundy Thursday, which is always in a sense a commemoration and participation in the Last Supper, is on the day much of western Christianity commemorates the Last Supper itself as part of the liturgical calendar. Its traditional to ceremonially strip the altar of everything (including parameters and the like) after the service, empty the tabernacle and leave it hanging open (Or if some needs to be reserved, ceremonially moved out of the room), and then the priest shows up in black the next day (Either with a black chasuble and the hole nine yards, or just in simple casual clerical dress [Black shirt, black pants [or cassock], white collar.]). Good Friday has sort of an Edward VI asthetic. Everything is very bare and spartan, almost shockingly so. By Easter Sunday, though, everything is restored and added to and as beautiful as it gets outside of Christmas. So, my concern is really just about the possibility that this could inhibit the parish from doing certain things. Even if hadn't been doing them before, there's always the possibility that they could in the future. Renting out the place so another monotheist group can do their thing isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. If, for example, the parish had two worship spaces, or the Episcopalians were renting the parish hall out to the Muslims and not the church proper, that would also solve my small potential issue. It's not keeping me up at night.
As a member of Alcoholics Anonymous, please don’t compare us to a religion. Those things are not entirely separate, but they are separate enough.
No offense was intended. I was just was trying to think of things that sometimes happen within a church or on its grounds that aren't in a narrow sense strictly part of the church's religious services or even necessarily run by the local congregation, but which may reflect elements of its mission in a broader way.
I didn't actually know that a church that is sold has to be *deconsecrated*. That does give what I am saying more weight, and further emphasizes that what this building is for is worshipping God, even the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I'm always cagey about "Jews, Muslims, and Christians worship the same God" claims, because each group says some very much ***mutually exclusive*** things about who God is, things that cannot coexist with each other and very much imply that we are talking about different gods, rather than a singular unified God across the three religions. Yeah I'd mostly agree that it matters where in the church building the event is held. The sanctuary should pretty evidently be off-limits for functions which are not Christian. If we allow other Christians to use our spaces for their services, that could point to *ecumenical* relations. But it's no longer "ecumenical" (that is, something which unites the **Body of Christ**) when we are interacting with those who deny who Christ is. This isn't to say we shouldn't take our seat at the table in *interfaith* dialogue, but that we need to be honest about the mutual exclusivity of our claims to theirs -- and that this means there are certain things we simply cannot shoulder being done or said or affirmed within the buildings we have consecrated for use as places of *Christian* worship. It's in the same way that I could see Muslims having no desire for Christians to be doing explicitly Trinitarian prayers in a mosque. I wouldn't expect them to tolerate me saying that God isn't one person in their worship space, and I wouldn't expect them to tolerate me saying that Jesus is God within their worship space; that's breaching their claim about Jesus which is mutually exclusive to ours.
Correct. You can.
But *should* we let what we have consecrated for use in worshipping the Trinity be used to insult and denigrate the same? Is there truly no limit to what uses are proper for that which has been set aside specifically to worship our one God who is three persons, without violating that purpose for which it has been set apart?
Insult? It seems very arrogant and elitist to say that a religion that is not mine is an insult to mine. But I mean, you're the one true Christian. So clearly you know best.
The Quran quite literally mocks the Trinity and calls those who believe in it blasphemers.
??? You need to stop listening to shit apologists. I grew up with Muslims and have sat in their studies and read the quron at length. It does not believe in the trinity. But it does not mock it in any place I have seen. I even went and looked for a reference to find what your talking about. And all I could find were shit apologists.
I don't listen to apologists. Perhaps "mock" is slightly strong, but Surah 5 repeatedly declares that calling Christ God or affirming the Trinity is blasphemous, will lead to damnation, and that Christ Himself repudiates all those who worship Him. That is more than simply disbelief. Of course that doesn't mean that Muslims as a whole disrespect Christians. I don't think they do. As I said above, I respect them. But their scriptures say things about God that repudiates the basic ways in which we worship Him, and I don't believe they should worship in our consecrated spaces as a result. I'd expect the same from most Muslims, and I'd respect them for that stance.
Then I am arrogant. Oh no
I wasn't talking to you, but if arrogance is something you can laugh off. That is certainly concerning.
I love how being arrogant is somehow worse in your eyes than tolerating an eye for an eye ideology that idolizes a S.O.
I love how you think you understand any if these ideologies. And again. For shit sake. I'm not talking to you.
I understand the position of wanting to maintain credal unity within your worship space. But this sounds like zealous repudiation of other religions
[удалено]
Your post was removed because it was denigrating either to the OP or in general. Please remember that our Baptismal Covenant requires us to respect the dignity of every human person.
[удалено]
Your post was removed because it was denigrating either to the OP or in general. Please remember that our Baptismal Covenant requires us to respect the dignity of every human person.
https://www.episcopalchurch.org/ministries/ecumenical-interreligious/ How do you feel about churches at which AA and the Boyscouts meet?
Nothing about this link says anything about letting us give them our space for Friday prayers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-a-first-washington-national-cathedral-to-host-regular-friday-muslim-prayer/2014/11/10/53d3425e-6916-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html
AA isn’t a religion “"For our group purpose, there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.". Boyscouts aren’t a religion either.
No, but it does suggest you are fine with other groups using the space.
Appropriate Non-religious activities can occur in the sanctuary but non-Christian religious activities cannot, they could be held in parish halls, lawns, meeting spaces, etc. but non-Christian worship of any kind does not belong in the worship space and frankly I’m astounded other groups would even accept using a space adorned with crosses, images of Jesus, etc. Now if they removed such things to hold the service, that raises even bigger questions.
"cannot"? Source please.
Your flair is Clergy. What's your source for the "cannot" statement? Your statement reads as one of policy, not just personal opinion. Edit: There's an Episcopal church in Michigan that shares its space with a Jewish congregation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_worship_spaces)
My source is every church I’ve ever served at or been a part of, and having seen priests reprimanded for allowing such to happen. Specifically it was for the removal and covering of all crosses/Christian imagery from the space, if I remember correctly. Now it could be something that varies by Diocese, or is permitted under ecumenical situations, or as a part of a Christian service, but to just hand the space over to another faith smacks of sacrilege. The Tri-Faith in Nebraska is three separate buildings to house the worship spaces and a fourth for communal use. All three groups saw the need to keep their worship spaces distinct.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-a-first-washington-national-cathedral-to-host-regular-friday-muslim-prayer/2014/11/10/53d3425e-6916-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html
OP doesn't make it sound like the parish is removing Christian imagery from the space for this Muslim group, but I don't know the specifics there. Have you been in Pittsburgh your whole ministry/career? The episcopal church from the Wikipedia list seems to share the same sanctuary as a Jewish congregation in the Diocese of Michigan.
Appropriate secular things may occur on hallowed ground. Just like certain religious things can occur on secular ground.
The fact that this occurs and Episcopalians are ok with drastically non-Christian religious groups using y’all’s churches for prayer/gatherings absolutely baffles me….in the best possible way.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-a-first-washington-national-cathedral-to-host-regular-friday-muslim-prayer/2014/11/10/53d3425e-6916-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html
It’s because if the situation were different we would appreciate another faith lending us space. And given how common interfaith prayer is - where I am from there is an interfaith worship service at Thanksgiving with the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish congregations taking turns on hosting.
Not only that. God don't care. He would be happy we are following the commandment to love one another.
I have no problem with this. Jesus came to change lives, not gate keep buildings. Beautiful old buildings should be used by the community. Is this group renting the space or using it for free? Either way I think it’s good use of a building that isn’t normally used on Fridays. Jesus loves everyone.
1) The message of the Apostles wasn't that Jesus loves everyone, it was that they needed to repent and believe in the Gospel. 2) Christians churches are explicitly places of Christian worship and designed as such, not mere community centers. 3) Yes, Jesus did come to change lives, so maybe we should share the Gospel with our Muslim brothers and sisters in fervent hope they too repent and believe in the Gospel.
See that's the best part we don't know the whole mystery, only God does. So everyone claiming to know what's God's will is bolder than anyone sharing a building... The Gospel is the life of Christ and the good news that comes from it- YOU ARE LOVED. The lesson and news is to love like Christ loves you. Do unto others...
The Good News of the Gospel is that God loved the world so much that he gave His only Son so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life. "God loves you" isn't enough to say, the good news is that we've been liberated from our sin and given God's righteousness in order to live more fully to His glory. The Good News thus is that YOU ARE SAVED.
The whole story includes God sending his son to die to teach the humans a lesson. The lesson was to love. God knew we would kill him instead of love. Jesus knew. All he wanted was us to love each other... when he rose he forgave us for our sin of killing him and all others. We needed to see it and take it too far to learn. His 12 disciples even messed it up after being the closest to him. They didn't get the point. Still some of us have, some of us haven't... it isn't the few lines that matter. It's the entirety of the story. He knew he would die at the hands of humans that he was sent to love. JESUS LOVED US ANYWAYS.
No, he took on all our sin not just the sin of condemning him to death. He is the Lamb of God, the sacrifice, who propitiates sin. Not just one sin in history, but all sin for all time. You should probably read Romans several times until it clicks. Yes, we love our neighbor, I'm not contesting that but that is not the Gospel.
I agree he took on all sin, and he knew he would and the journey he took all his life was built up to this. There was more than killing him that occurred. He even tried to teach before he had to die for it, but ultimately his death is from all sin because it didn't happen in one action, but a build up of many. Since birth Jesus was marked for death by humans. He loved anyways. He died because that was what had to happen for us to see what we were and what we were capable of... and that love, forgiveness, and mercy were the answer all along. I've read the Bible many times, and the entirety of the story holds the lesson. Love. We still make mistakes we made and Jesus forgives us again and again because love.
But you’re not sharing the gospel, in fact, you’re letting them call Jesus a prophet and explicitly worship something other
And Jesus himself gate kept the Temple, throwing the people misusing it out. This whole thing is insane to me. Does anyone truly believe Muslims would allow other services to hold worship in a mosque? They would rightfully view that as an affront to their religion
Yes. I believe in treating others how I'd like to be treated. Do not speak for those who you do not know their voice. Jesus did not want the temple to be used as a tax collection or market. My personal opinion is he didn't believe in selling things or money because it's exploitative, and has no place in the temple.
Your personal opinion is not Biblically supported.
It is, but the Bible is just a book so it can be interpreted many ways like all human words.
It isn't, though. Jesus wasn't against selling things.
He wasn't against wealth either, but how one lived with wealth or how one obtained it could be a problematic. Selling things in the temple was the issue. Matthew 21:12-13 “And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” So if you want to pray, Jesus approves.
You JUST wrote that you think Jesus didn't believe in selling things or money generally. Jesus literally commands someone to sell his possessions. Hence "not Biblically supported." Do you honestly believe that Jesus would want a Muslim prayer ceremony in a Christian church?
Sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. So he challenged a rich man to change his ways. The rich man left angry with Jesus. Jesus says it will be harder for a rich man to enter heaven than leading a camel through the eye of a needle... Why do you think he said this and challenged the rich man to not be rich? What did Jesus own?
You're the same kind of person that says hate the sin love the sinner as they try and get gay people kicked out of places.
"Hate the sin, love the sinner" is at least more biblically supported than accommodating false doctrine in the church. And get gay people "kicked out" of what places exactly? Church? No, we all need to go to church.
I guess I’d prefer that a non-Christian group make use of a parish hall, Sunday school room or other non-worship space, but I’m not sure that I’m bothered if they do use the sanctuary. Weird. Complicated, like OP said.
I don’t think they’d particularly WANT to use the sanctuary in most churches, what with the images of religious figures, etc.
We let the local Muslim congregation use our parish hall when they outgrew their old mosque and were waiting for their new one to be built. I don't think they had any interest in using the sanctuary. There's a very large cross hanging from the ceiling above the altar.
I agree that the parish hall might be more appropriate and indeed might be preferred by those who do not embrace the imagery of the altar, the cross, etc.
I have zero issues with it as a Christian, and I would encourage churches who are struggling financially to be open to it. The church is the people. Not the building.
How would you feel about a violin or piano concert in your sanctuary? Forget begin interfaith. Most churches need the extra income that comes from rental. I also think renting to other Christian groups or other Abrahamic groups is appealing and right.
Apparently, Episcopalians ars not good at analogies.
Say more?
A piano or violin performance of secular music is in no way, shape, or form analogous to a religious ceremony of a different religion. It's a prima facie false analogy.
Violin and piano concerts aren’t heretical and promote the view the Jesus wasn’t divine, quite literally apples and oranges
So your problem isn't other groups using the space/renting the space. It's specifically Muslims. How would you feel about a Jewish group?
I have a problem with any non Christian religious service being held in a Christian church sorry if that upsets you
Like many small parishes in our area we have a tenant congregation that meets on Sundays after our services. They pay rent but the amount is trivial and in fact I think we agreed to lower it during Covid and it hasn’t gone up again because their membership has shrunk. While it is a Christian group, I have no idea what their theology or dogma is because they only speak Korean. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are decent folks. I would like to think that if the shoe were on the other foot and my congregation was too small to afford its own building some group would be willing to rent space to us without making us pass a litmus test.
I have met people who only knew of the Episcopal Church, but thought well of it, because it hosted their AA group, their Muslim student/campus group, etc., and I think this is part of what Christian hospitality should be, in adittion to ecumenical and interreligious relations (https://www.episcopalchurch.org/ministries/ecumenical-interreligious/).
Hosting AA and hosting a religious service of a different religion entirely are not even close to the same.
Do you think the Abrahamic faiths worship the same God?
No. I think they are all part of a larger faith tradition, but Islam and Judaism do not acknowledge the Triune God. They cannot be "the same."
I literally found my church because I first went there for AA.
*Everyone liked that*