Regretfully I have to say we Methodists are not as nice as we claim. A non-Christian journalist visited another Methodist blog and mentioned to me how she found many of the comments offensive. In fact one of the comments was so offensive and defamatory that the blog publisher was forced to removed it.
Several people have whinged that the resolution passed at the Portsmouth conference is no big deal really as it only refers to "illegal settlements on the West Bank". This is the line pushed in the "Questions and Answers" now posted on the Methodist Church website.
Report
However, few people seem to have read the very first line of the resolution passed at conference. It says:
"The Methodist Conference receives the report Justice for Palestine and Israel".
The conference didn't pass a nice pink and fluffy resolution about a few extremists building settlements where they shouldn't be. The report actively questions the right of the Jewish people to settle in Israel at all with a half baked analysis of nineteenth century Zionism.
If the military occupation of parts of the West Bank and illegal settlements were the only blockage to peace there would be no need to re-write history and conclude that Jews should not be settled there in the first place. Weasel words about Israel's "right to exist within secure borders" will not ameliorate the general tenor of the report.
Faith and order
The Faith and Order Committee of the Methodist Church has been instructed to "to undertake further work on the theological issues, including Christian Zionism". This will be a stitch up. Only those who can be trusted to draw the pre-ordained conclusion will be allowed anywhere near it's preparation. It will conclude that the Jews have no Biblical authority to live in Israel.
Imagine, a mainstream denomination concluding that the people of Israel have no place in the Holy Land. That is the trajectory that we are now on as a denomination.
When challenged, members of the working party will doubtless say "we were just obeying orders", sorry....slip of the tongue.... "we were doing conference's bidding".
Hijack
We have allowed a small group of people to hijack Methodism's good name for tolerance and open mindedness to run a discriminatory campaign against Jewish people. My strong advice to anyone assuming that this resolution is simply about "justice" and illegal settlements is to read the report.
Also among the hate mail was a comment from someone signing themselves as "Tom". He actually did make an interesting point and one worth pursuing .Of Palestinian Christians he says: "They do live under occupation and they are being heavily squeezed by both the settlers and radical Islamic groups."
Now that's an interesting point. Palestinian Christians that I have spoken too (not in the last ten years by way of clarification) explained to me that they feared the creation of an Islamic state.They expected, as Tom points out, to be "squeezed". To a large extent this has been borne out by the massive emigration of Palestinian Christians during the 1980s and 1990s.
Squeeze
But it is curious that our own Methodist report barely mentions this issue. Much of the report is based on work undertaken by the Friends of Sabeel. and the Palestine Kairos document neither of whom acknowledge this squeeze on their respective websites.
However an acknowledgment of this issue did sneak into the reports from the Portsmouth Methodist Conference
The Reverend Doctor Naim Ateek blurted out that Palestinian Christians depended on Hamas for protection from "Muslim fanatics". Clearly an issue and a concern, but one that is not addressed in the Methodist report grandly entitled "Justice for Palestine and Israel".
Why not? Because the authors wanted to conclude that all the problems in the Holy Land are down to the Jews. Christians have been blaming the Jews for 2,000 years. It is time we stopped.
Risk
Meanwhile one bitter irony of "Justice for Palestine and Israel" is that it contained a risk assessment (page 177) of its impact - no kidding- a standard practice in many large corporations and public bodies. The assessment? " Risk: None".
If the authors can't even make an accurate risk assessment of their work how can we trust the accuracy of the rest of the report.........?
Posts
12 comments:
Perhaps you shoud read Minister Hall's response and both of you agree to differ on your respective positions.
David
I'd like you to temper the comments you have made in this post referring to work which the Faith and Order Committee have been asked to do on Christian Zionism and other issues related to the report. I think your speculation about the outcome is unwarranted and a slur upon the integrity of the members of the working party and on the integrity of the Methodist Council and Conference to scrutinise the work of the Committee. It is simply incorrect and may be read as slanderous in that it calls into question the professionalism of individuals within the process. Clearly if you have categoric proof that the working party is a 'stitch up', then as Secretary to the Faith and Order Committee who will initially scrutinise the groups work, I would be glad to see it.
Secondly, the report clearly accepted the right of Israel to exist as a nation in the Holy Land. I cannot see anything in the questions posed which could ever lead to the working party deciding that the contemporary Jewish State living in the Holy Land should not be accepted by the Methodist Church. That has never been suggested, indeed it has been rejected by the report. I don't see the point in inflammatory language to suggest the Church is making such a threat.
I would be grateful if you could amend the post to remove the defamatory allegations about F&O processes and personnel.
Thanks to Dave Warnock's Blog for alerting me to this post.
Pete Phillips
Secretary to the Faith and Order Committee
I have replied to this note personally.
Not good enough. You have personally slurred a lot of good people, because you disagree with a certain policy taken by the church. You've done it publicly, on this blog. If you have answer to Pete's criticisms, it should be in the same public forum as the criticisms, shouldn't it? Simply telling us you've answered doesn't tell us whether or not your answer was satisfactory.
Thanks Tony. In my response to Peter I mentioned one or two issues that were confidential to him and me. I made it clear that I stood by my comments about the Faith and Order Committee and would not be changing my post.
However I thought it only right to publish his comment.
This is what I have said on Richard Hall's Blog - Connexions:
I asked David to remove the defamatory comments he made about Faith and Order Working Party on Christian Zionism but although he has allowed the comment to appear on his site, he doesn’t accept the need to remove the offending material. In a private email to me he sets out why - basically a re-iteration of what he says on the site.
Looks like David thinks he can only take offence but none of his words ever give offence - or if they do then he doesn’t care. He can defame others without consequence but then talks in his comment above of someone else having to remove defamatory material. I think Jesus told a parable about such a person who tried to remove a speck from his friend’s eye?
I think I’m just going to shut up because there is no point engaging with someone who has sadly succumbed to listening solely to his own ill-informed rhetoric.
Pete
Peter,
what hasn't been said on this blog or any other blog is that I privately offered to assist the F&O working party in the preparation of their report.
I believed
*that my Parliamentary experience of work on the Israel Palestine issue,
*my background of having lived in a Jewish community,
*my understanding of the influence of the Darby and Schofield Bibles on certain Christian groups and
*my attendance at the "Prince of Peace" conference in 1999 held in Amman and Jerusalem where Christians, Jews and Muslims met together to discuss peace
may mean that I could have brought some helpful insights.
In addition I have been asked to review two academic works on the Isreal/Palestine conflict and the Abrahamic covenant prior to publication. My contribution is acknowledged in each preface, even though the author and I found substantial areas of disagreement!
Most of this I outlined in private emails to yourself.
I felt my offer was ignored and then rejected. I have not had an acceptable explanation.
If the F&O persistently excludes someone from their work should you be surprised that they assume there's a "stitch-up"?
David,
Many thanks. An email to you and others who had offered to be involved in the writing of a report on Christian Zionism was sent out the other day. Your offer was not ignored but it was rejected.
It seems a little strange to assume that just because you are not involved in a project it is therefore a stitch up. Let me assure you that there are gifted and talented people with a wealth of experience from different viewpoints who are on the group.
Pete
Thanks Peter, I look forward to seeing the finished work. I am sorry that others too have had their offers of help rejected.
I think these reports are best written after inclusive consultation.
I trust that the report will be everything that "Justice for Palestine and Israel" isn't - by that I mean fair, balanced, and well researched.
By the way? Who is on the group or is that a state secret?
(I'm not anonymous, I'm Rick and just not registered.) The main problem is that a lot of groups don't really want the problem solved. Neither the Arab League does (then they would have their other problems to deal with including their disgraceful treatment of Palestinians) nor the Palestinian leadership (then they would have to deal with their problems on their own) nor the International Left (they would have one less boogey-man to rail against from within their elitist and hypocritical 'worlds'). Others too, I'm sure.
Hi David,
Thank you for taking such a brave stance on this issue, and I think you are absolutely correct to do so. I was appalled after reading about the Methodist Church's boycott decision and think it is fantastic that at least one person is prepared to stand up and say it is wrong.
Matt, London
Post a Comment