You're kidding right? Over a stupid building of stone?
I think as with all controversies on what it means to be Christian and what it does not mean, it has to do with keeping people in line. Just as the Church (whichever church might be the subject) needs to keep people in line with their dogmas and doctrines, so as not to confuse people by saying nothing, that building seems considerably important to the Christians that go there.
There is a fear that without this building, the Christians there can't be Christians!!!! It seems to suggest some kind of attachment (home sweet home feeling) toward the building. In the same way that Christians may be confused without the guidance of doctrine and dogma, they feel confused without the building which is so dear to them!!!
Cordoba bishop Juan Jose Asenjo rejected the Islamic Board's request, saying joint use of the temple would confuse believers and promote religious indifference.
I guess it just wouldn't be the same. But I think it would also be an opportunity. It's a chance to discover what it means to
not have that building.
That building is a place of convenience. A convenient place for everyone who goes there to meet and experience God. It's a place of convenience even for the leader of that church. Nobody wants to take the time to make arrangements for meeting at a different place.
Diversity is good within Christianity, but in inter-faith terms, that would be scary, perhaps even disastrous. One would wonder how the meaning of Christianity might be preserved in such an environment.
I believe Bishop Juan Jose Asenjo is right, Christianity would be confused in that setting. For a long time, perhaps as long as Christianity has been around, the meaning of Christianity has been preserved by dogma and doctrine. Christianity has often been either attacked or simply undermined because of these doctrines. That's because Christians have often been conditioned to think these doctrines are essential -- that they ultimately define what Christianity means. If confronted by an interfaith environment, they may think these "doctrines" are too "rigid," ungainly or awkward. Seeing that Christianity is "awkward" they may feel seduced into embracing elements of the other faiths and lose sight of what Christianity really means.
Trouble is, not everyone has come to terms of what Christianity might mean without the dogma and doctrine -- the "down-to-earth" Christianity they start seeking when they realise that there's something deeper to Christianity than the doctrine and dogma. Unfortunately, not all of Christianity has moved on from past traditions. Introduction of inter-faith experiences could be a sudden disruption of the process of learning about Christianity.
Those still caught up with the doctrine and dogma may find themselves confused with faiths that have already transcended this barrier, and find Christianity lacking.
If the meaning of the Christianity is to be preserved, and the parishioners want it to be done through the doctrines they were taught, they may have to leave and go to another church . . . Otherwise, if they choose to stay, the parishioners would have to start rediscovering what Christianity means to them, without the normal tradition and doctrine that is taught. In such an environment, Christianity can't remain static and unchanging. Repeating the same story again and again doesn't lead to much excitement . . .
What a dilemma!!!
