Yesterday evening I posted the unsurprising news that the official Iranian government newsagency had welcomed the recent British Methodist Church position on Israel and Palestine.
This prompted a Jewish observer at that same conference, someone who was actually in the room to say how he felt about the proceddings. Let Richard Cooper take up the story:
I attended the Methodist Conference as a local Jewish observer. Though acknowledged as such from the podium, I was not allowed to speak. Your neighbour Rev.Nichola Jones from Erdington Methodist Church made a chilling speech. Here is an extract, transcribed word for word from the conference video http://tinyurl.com/32m45hn
"In the Bible we learn of the Chosen People. Who are they and what were they chosen for? Genesis tells us again & again that God chooses Abraham and makes a covenant with Abraham & his heirs: a covenant being a two-sided agreement with obligations on both parties, like marriage......Of course, Israel today is not the same as Israel in the Bible: in the Bible, Israel refers to the people of Abraham's descendants, who are in covenant with God. Israel today is a modern, secular state, created in 1948.......For years I cherished the Galatian text...now I read it properly: 'In Christ there is no longer male or female, slave or free, Jew or Greek (we could say Jew or Arab): we are all one in Christ.' We are heirs of Abraham, and so inheritors of the promise of Abraham. Jesus, who makes with us a new covenant which transforms us utterly, never speaks of the land or owning it: he speaks of the Kingdom & joining it and invites us to do so. He teaches us God is not a racist God with favourites, but God loves all his children & blesses them. What is it God requires of you, asks Micah today: to do justice, to show mercy, to walk humbly with God....."
Listening to this and others (there were also approving references to Messianic Judaism and disparaging references to Christian Zionism), I felt like the accused in a Nazi show trial. This is pure supersessionist ideology, identical with that espoused by the revanchist Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson.
If this is now to be the official policy of the Methodist church in Britain - that the State of Israel by its 'oppressive actions' has broken the Jews' covenant with God - then I see no purpose in further dialogue between Anglo-Jewry and Methodism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
I quote from a letter in this week's Methodist Recorder:
"I am a Jew, and I would like the Conference to know that I fully support its decision to boycott settlement goods. Further, I know that of many of my fellow Jews who feel exactly as I do."
So, it's not as clear-cut a response as you suggest.
I am also disturbed at the logic of the argument that any criticism of the state of Israel is a rejection of all dialogue with Jews. As I have said several times in this and other conversations, I have been a friend of Israel since 1967, and would like to continue as such. Was Nicola wrong when she quoted Micah? Does Israel live in terms consistent with the Covenant People?
I continue to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and for true shalom for God's world. Angry posturing doesn't help.
If this is now to be the official policy of the Methodist church in Britain - that the State of Israel by its 'oppressive actions' has broken the Jews' covenant with God.
I never thought that there was a Methodist - or a 'proper' Christian - theology which said "God made a covenant with the modern State of Israel which entitles them to exclusive use and ownership of land in the Holy Land." (We'll leave out the thorny problem of which land.)
Therefore, I don't think that Nicola Jones said that modern Jews have forfeited their covenant with God.
'Proper' Christian theology states that Christians are included in the covenant that God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 'Proper" Christian theology most certainly does not say that Jews have forfeited their covenant.
Do your Jewish friends know that you have also been complaining that there should be more Methodist missionaries in Israel trying to covert Jews to Christianity?
I am also disturbed at the logic of the argument that any criticism of the state of Israel is a rejection of all dialogue with Jews.
Me too.
Thank you, David, for posting my comments. To those who disagree I say this: you have a right to protest about any action or policy committed by the Israeli government. You have no right to infer that by such actions Israel has forfeited its right to exist as a Jewish state in the Holy Land. Of course the Palestinian Arabs have a right to live in peace on that land - provided they do not work to overthrow the State of Israel by force of arms. The sad fact is that too many people, Christian and Muslim, cannot bear the idea of the Jewish people ruling themselves in their own independent state. And yes, there are Jews who think that too. But not many!
Tony, I notice that the Recorder used the letter from Stanley Walinets and clearly this is at odds with what the official representatives of Judasim are saying.
Despite being a Methodist Local Preacher and Tony a Minister we still speak as individuals and not for methodism just as Stanley Walinets cannot speak for British Judaism.
I have been in contact with several British Jews and none have expressed the same view at Stanley.
Thanks to the JC I happen to know that another letter has been sent to the Recorder and I look forward to seeing it published. I have reproduced it here in an earlier post.
http://methodistpreacher.blogspot.com/2010/07/letter-to-recorder-but-will-it-be.html
I don't understand how a body which has the written policy "We affirm the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security" - and which has continually restated that policy in writing - can be interpreted to be a body which also wants the State of Israel to be destroyed.
Of course there are people and organisations who want the State of Israel to be destroyed.
Those who really believe that the Methodist Church intends to be a friend - and there do seem to be Jewish organisations who believe this - might better put their effort into saying "Here is why what you think is misguided and why it will harm Jewish people long term."
Simply shouting "You are Antisemites" is much more likely to alienate than convince people to rethink their policy.
But maybe some people actually want us to BE the enemy rather to assume our goodwill. Why that is so, I can't fathom.
Pam you say "maybe some people actually want us to BE the enemy rather to assume our goodwill."
I have never believed that to be the case with Jews or Israelis - and I was born into the midst of one of the largest Jewish communities in post war Europe.
I'm not certain that inviting someone to our conference who dismisses the Holocaust as a Zionist "tool" or who says "some Christians appreciate Hammas" is actually an indication of "goodwill" to Jews and Israelis.
Listen to Ateek's speech, some Ministers even laughed at his weak "jokes".
Re-reading the statement by the Chief Rabbi I was struck by his dignity and I don't think he accused the Methodist Church of anti-Semitism.
We seem to have brought that upon ourselves with this ill-advised invitation to Ateek, our choice of words in the report, our selective narrative, Graham Carter's clumsy defence and Nicola Jones outright attack.
I do not interpret Ateek's words on the Holocaust in the same way you do. The Jewish groups seemed to make a similar and related point: "Our claim to the Holy Land is ancient and not rooted in the events of the Holocaust". Whilst I also personally affirm the right of Israel to live in peace and security (I draw attention to these words), I do think that much of the Euro/American hysteria to support anything that Israel does comes from displaced guilt about the Holocaust. This does NOT deny the right of Israel to exist, but I do think our guilt has given us moral and ethical blinkers at certain actions.
I do absolutely do not think that Nicola Jones made any attack on Israel at all, let alone and "outright" one. I would really like to understand how you see this as an attack? Do you think that the Covenant Service is an attack on Israel, becasue to me, that was the traditional Methodist theology that she was articulating.
Pam, while I acknowledge your goodwill I find it difficult to convey my revulsion at the comments of Rev Nichola Jones et al because we are coming from such different starting points.
Jews need their own country because throughout history they have been attacked and murdered for no other reason than that they are Jews. No matter that they are loyal to the countries they live in, obey their laws, conform to their customs or even convert to their religion. The Holocaust was just the last and worst in an endless series of ever-greater persecutions and mass murders; and without a State of Israel, there was a real danger of new Holocausts in the Arab world in the 1950s and Russia in the 1990s.
Israeli Jews want the Palestinian Arabs to have their own state, occupying a substantial part of the Holy Land, and are willing to have the boundaries drawn by an international authority. A withdrawal from 92% of the territories conquered in 1967 was offered in 2000 at Taba, and the other 8% would surely have followed after a period of peace long enough to convince Israel that it was no longer under military threat. Unfortunately, when the Arabs talk about 'the Occupation', they do not refer just to the West Bank and Gaza: they mean the whole of present-day Israel. No Arab spokesman has ever marked out a region of Israel, however small, over which they disclaim sovereignty unequivocally. If the true Arab demand is a bi-national state as envisioned by Dr.Edward Said or a Muslim state under Sharia law, as envisioned by Hamas, then this needs to be declared openly so we all know where we stand.
Jews have lived in the Holy Land for at least 3,000 years. Reach deep enough under the soil of the Holy Cities of Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias or Hebron and you will touch a pot, a coin or a stone whose Hebrew inscription bears witness to the Jewish hand that wrought it, a thousand years or more before the Prophet Mohammed first drew breath.
Every day Jews recite prayers of love for Jerusalem, prayers that were already ancient when Jesus of Nazareth recited them as a child.
Pam, while I acknowledge your goodwill I find it difficult to convey my revulsion at the comments of Rev Nichola Jones et al because we are coming from such different starting points.
Jews need their own country because throughout history they have been attacked and murdered for no other reason than that they are Jews. No matter that they are loyal to the countries they live in, obey their laws, conform to their customs or even convert to their religion. The Holocaust was just the last and worst in an endless series of ever-greater persecutions and mass murders; and without a State of Israel, there was a real danger of new Holocausts in the Arab world in the 1950s and Russia in the 1990s.
Israeli Jews want the Palestinian Arabs to have their own state, occupying a substantial part of the Holy Land, and are willing to have the boundaries drawn by an international authority. A withdrawal from 92% of the territories conquered in 1967 was offered in 2000 at Taba, and the other 8% would surely have followed after a period of peace long enough to convince Israel that it was no longer under military threat. Unfortunately, when the Arabs talk about 'the Occupation', they do not refer just to the West Bank and Gaza: they mean the whole of present-day Israel. No Arab spokesman has ever marked out a region of Israel, however small, over which they disclaim sovereignty unequivocally. If the true Arab demand is a bi-national state as envisioned by Dr.Edward Said or a Muslim state under Sharia law, as envisioned by Hamas, then this needs to be declared openly so we all know where we stand.
Jews have lived in the Holy Land for at least 3,000 years. Reach deep enough under the soil of the Holy Cities of Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias or Hebron and you will touch a pot, a coin or a stone whose Hebrew inscription bears witness to the Jewish hand that wrought it, a thousand years or more before the Prophet Mohammed first drew breath.
Every day Jews recite prayers of love for Jerusalem, prayers that were already ancient when Jesus of Nazareth recited them as a child.
What most people seem to forget is that if you look at a map of the British Mandate of Palestine, you will realise that some 80% approx. was given over to an Arab state. It is now called Jordan.
JORDAN IS A PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE!
Sorry to shout but no-one listens.
Why do the Arabs want a SECOND Palestinian Arab state?
To get rid of the Jews?
Finally,
There has NEVER been an independent state of Palestine. It has always been someone's property, by conquest, since Roman times. Check it out!
The Romans renamed Israel as Palestine by way of declaring absolute victory. It follows that every attempt to call the Holy Land 'Palestine' is to be complicit in the Roman attempt to eradicate Israel.
Don't you believe your Bible and the Promise God gave to Abraham? If He breaks that, why should we believe Him over Jesus?.
Jews need their own country because throughout history they have been attacked and murdered for no other reason than that they are Jews.
I agree with you on this point as well as agreeing broadly with what you say in your post. (And thank you for at least trusting in my goodwill.)
What I do not understand is what Nicola Jones said that denied that?
Do you think that we - Christians and/or society at large - must believe that God gave the Holy Land to the modern State of Israel in order for Israel to have the right to live in peace and security? Is that the objection?
I honestly don't understand, but I'm prepared to believe it's because I'm "seeing" Nicola's speech with a specific pair of "lenses" (Methodist theological ones).
I don't believe a biblical interpretation that God gave the Holy Land to the present State of Israel, but that lack of belief doesn't mean I deny the right of the present State of Israel to exist.
It's hard to understand why people in this debate keep trying to convince me and others that Israel has the right to exist when we already believe that. What do you think we think?
OK Pam [sigh], I'll try to answer your questions directly. If you believe that the legitimacy of the State of Israel rests entirely on the UN resolution of November 1947 and that if that resolution is ever overturned by the UN then Israel loses its legitimacy, then you are an anti-Zionist. If you believe that it would be better for Israel to lose its Jewish national character , for there to be one state in the former Palestine mandate, and that, since that one state will have a (mainly Muslim) Arab majority the Jews should knuckle under and accept Arab hegemony, then you are an anti-Zionist.
Now there's nothing morally wrong with being an anti-Zionist. It's not like being an antisemite or other bigot. But it does mean that you and I cannot agree on the future of the State of Israel, and by extension that of the Jewish people the next time we come under threat. Sorry!
I'm not certain that inviting someone to our conference who dismisses the Holocaust as a Zionist "tool" or who says "some Christians appreciate Hammas" is actually an indication of "goodwill" to Jews and Israelis.
First of all, I'd want to listen to the speech myself and then I'd want to have a think about it. It probably won't come as any surprise to you that I often don't agree with your "take" on what is intended by the words and actions of others.
Without either having listened to the speech or thought about what I have heard, my initial reaction is that I believe that the Methodist Conference genuinely wishes the State of Israel permanent existence in a state of prosperity and security. Given that presupposition, I don't see why voices of Middle Eastern Christians should not be heard even if we don't agree 100% with what they say.
I don't believe in the dualistic world that you often seem to present where those who I disagree with must be my sworn enemies and must be silenced and made powerless. (Maybe I'm wrong in my perception, but that's how it comes across to me most of the time.)
In human terms, the legitimacy of Israel depends on the League of Nations and the British Mandate, followed by the UN resolution. Most states do not even have that!
Spiritually, it is clear from scripture that there would be a final and permanent return to the Land.
As to which Land, Jesus made it clear that He intended to return to Jerusalem and to His people, not His Church which is His Bride, but His people. Contrary to the claims of Arab spokeswoman, Hanan Ashwari, Jesus is not a Palestinian Arab. Bethlehem was the city of David and both he and Jesus are Jewish.
Yes, that cause problems, but they are not insuperable unless you deny the right of Israel to exist within defensible borders. How about the original Mandated ones?
Yes, that cause problems, but they are not insuperable unless you deny the right of Israel to exist within defensible borders. How about the original Mandated ones?
Ian, I personally have absolutely no problem at all with the original mandated borders.
Keep in mind that the specific issue which started all this brou-ha-ha with David was an objection to the building of settlements in the disputed areas of Gaza. Which is a live debate in the international community and is something that "even" the US government has requested to cease and desist. To hold that view doesn't automatically make a person an anti-Semite.
Spiritually, it is clear from scripture that there would be a final and permanent return to the Land.
I think that many British Methodists, along with many other Christians and many non-orthodox Jews, would not hold with an interpretation of Scripture that says "covenant" is about "land". This was the very point that Nicola Jones was making, in my estimation. Your interpretation of Scripture is one I disagree with but it's one traditional interpretation. I think I can respect someone's right to hold that view without disliking them and I'd hope that people who do hold your interpretation can respect the other view of "covenant" without making accusations of anti-semitism.
If you believe that the legitimacy of the State of Israel rests entirely on the UN resolution of November 1947 and that if that resolution is ever overturned by the UN then Israel loses its legitimacy, then you are an anti-Zionist
Richard, I'm not entirely certain why thinking that the UN Resolution established the State of Israel automatically demands belief in the possibility of instant dissolution by UN mandate? To be honest, "instant dissolution by UN mandate" never occurred to me.
I thank God that I am not Sole Emperor of the World and I don't know what I'd do in the Middle East if you made me SEOTW tomorrow; I have actually studied the history of the region and I can't personally judge one side to have acted with unequivocal morality and the other to have acted with unequivocal immorality. As the cop-out goes, I do see the situation as incredibly complicated. If I had a magic wand, I genuinely would want everyone in the region to live in peace and those who feel that the must resort to heinous acts of violence to repent of their immorality.
However, I'm quite happy with you stating "If you believe X, then you are an anti-Zionist".
As I see it, this is quite a different approach than David has taken here and on the "Connexions" blog which infers racial hatred as the motivation (i.e. the source and beginning point) for beliefs that have as their object the destruction of the State of Israel and other antisemitic consequences.
No problems with the mandated borders? Do you know what they were, before the Arabs attacked? Didn't think so.
Israel gets the Gaza strip and the West Bank. Oops. Yes, they are occupied territories - by the Arabs.
If God's promises to Abraham are not about the Land, what are they about? They are very specific and geographical in nature.
"Actually", says God, "I meant Heaven and not Earth". Really? Report God to Trading Standards. Not as advertised. Are we accusing God of some kind of shell game?
The ownership of the Land is not about morality. Loss of the Land is about lack of faith. The Return is about God's Name. It's about God's Honour. Unconditional Grace and nothing to do with earning the Land. If the Jews have to earn Israel then we ALL have to earn Heaven.
If the Jews cannot return to the Land, then where are they supposed to go? And you have ignored the fact that Jesus said that He would return to the Land.
As the young Rabbi said to the old Rabbi, "When they say that anti-Zionism is not the same as Anti-semitism, are they lying?
Replied the old Rabbi," Not always; but almost always."
That is how the Jews see it. I had that from a Jewish friend whose family survived WW2.
Yes, Ian, you have caught me out. I am filled with hatred for the Jewish people and I want to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth as well as all of my Jewish colleagues and family friends who have I known since I was a baby. There is no rational reason for the intense hatred I feel other than, of course, that you and David are two of only a handful of decent Gentiles on earth. [1]
[1] Just in case it needs saying, this is heavy sarcasm since I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if someone later claims that I actually believe this.
Pam, I didn't say or imply anything of the sort and I don't like words being wrongly attributed to me.
All I did was show how a great many Jews see the issue because the practical consequences of Anti-Zionism are often indistinguishable from anti-Semitism. I think a great many Christians have been misled by a very effective and oil-funded pan-Arab propaganda campaign.
You have made the issue into a personal;
attack , which is not the case, but it is effective in shutting down the debate.
Pam, I didn't say or imply anything of the sort and I don't like words being wrongly attributed to me.
You said: As the young Rabbi said to the old Rabbi, "When they say that anti-Zionism is not the same as Anti-semitism, are they lying? Replied the old Rabbi," Not always; but almost always."
I know an insinuation when I see it.
I don’t appreciate mind-games. (Yes, I know the next move is that you reply that you never actually said I was an anti-Semite.)
You have made the issue into a personal; attack , which is not the case, but it is effective in shutting down the debate.
I don’t feel discussion is possible here either. You won’t address my issues; you only address issues that you believe I believe, even if I’ve never said them.
The above is the last-resort argument of those who don’t understand the difference between attacking character and stating a disagreement. Sorry, I don’t buy the argument that it’s my fault that I’ve taken the obvious meaning of the insinuations here.
Post a Comment