The British Methodist Church has withdrawn a seven year old, offensive, anti-Semitic rant from its official website.
This follows representations by myself and publication in the influential Huffington Post.
The paper was written by Elizabeth Harris, an "interfaith coordinator", who apparently left the employ of the Methodist Church four years ago. It was undated and doesn't appear to to have any relationship with any other document, for example, it was not labeled as being a report to a committee. Heaven only knows why such a vile piece of defamation was left on the website or even thought worthy of publication in our name.
What is disturbing is that there appears to be a concerted attempt in some parts of the Methodist Church to belittle the significance of the Holocaust. We really do have to confront this anti-Semitism which is now beginning to look institutionalised.
I am taking up another similar issue next week (though initially in private).
Last year we hosted a speaker - who was applauded when he dismissed the Holocaust as a "Zionist tool". We have a whole army of "interfaith enablers" who seem unable to grasp the significance of the Holocaust to Jewish people.Why do we employ these people when they continually get it so spectacularly wrong?
However we should thank senior officials at Church House who withdrew the document on Friday as soon as they became aware of its existence. Common sense at last.
Update: The coverage and comments at Harry's Place should humble every British Methodist.
Further update: Thanks to some fine toothcomb work by Jeremy on Harry's Place he reminds us that Elizabeth Harris was on the working party that produced the report adopted by Methodist Conference last year. The case gets stronger by the minute!
Further, further update: Readers may be interested in comments on the (ironically named) Elders of Zion website.
This follows representations by myself and publication in the influential Huffington Post.
The paper was written by Elizabeth Harris, an "interfaith coordinator", who apparently left the employ of the Methodist Church four years ago. It was undated and doesn't appear to to have any relationship with any other document, for example, it was not labeled as being a report to a committee. Heaven only knows why such a vile piece of defamation was left on the website or even thought worthy of publication in our name.
What is disturbing is that there appears to be a concerted attempt in some parts of the Methodist Church to belittle the significance of the Holocaust. We really do have to confront this anti-Semitism which is now beginning to look institutionalised.
I am taking up another similar issue next week (though initially in private).
Last year we hosted a speaker - who was applauded when he dismissed the Holocaust as a "Zionist tool". We have a whole army of "interfaith enablers" who seem unable to grasp the significance of the Holocaust to Jewish people.Why do we employ these people when they continually get it so spectacularly wrong?
However we should thank senior officials at Church House who withdrew the document on Friday as soon as they became aware of its existence. Common sense at last.
Update: The coverage and comments at Harry's Place should humble every British Methodist.
Further update: Thanks to some fine toothcomb work by Jeremy on Harry's Place he reminds us that Elizabeth Harris was on the working party that produced the report adopted by Methodist Conference last year. The case gets stronger by the minute!
Further, further update: Readers may be interested in comments on the (ironically named) Elders of Zion website.
Posts
12 comments:
This is the Lady:
http://www.hope.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&Itemid=898&task=userProfile&user=819
Her main area of expertise seems to be Buddhism.
Bravo, David!
Some questions.
How does the article qualify as a rant? There was nothing 'wild, vehement or violent' about it.
I can see why you might describe the article as very badly informed, erroneous or poorly argued but are you sure it is anti-semitic (spreading hatred of Jews)?
Huffington Post presented the article as if it were new, and represented the official position of the Methoddist Church. Do you go along with that?
How was the article and following comments at Harry's Place "humbling" for Methodists?
Thank you for your comments, especially Ian and Daphne.
Howard I have no idea who you are and doubt if you have read in detail the comments on Harry's Place or the Huffington Post article.
I suspect you are not a Methodist.
As one of the church's recognised local preacher's I feel deeply ashamed that our reputation is continually being trashed by the likes of Elizabeth Harris.
This appeared on our official website, on official notepaper. On that basis any visitor (including Huffington Post) to our website has every reason to believe it is the official stance of the Methodist Church - not the lone toxic rantings of an apparently exotic departed member of staff.
Please do not come on this site trying to excuse or explain anti-Semitism.
Thankfully the Church has realised the unacceptable nature of this document and withdrew it as soon as it existence an poison was recognised.
Thank you for your welcome. You are wrong on several counts. I am a Methodist, and I have read the articles and comments you linked pretty carefully. Some of it is expressed in language I'm quite sure a methodist preacher would not allow on his blog. I just don't see how the article you found offensive warrants a headline description as an "anti-semitic rant". What puzzles me is how this article came to the attention of the Huffington Post, given that it is so old and not apparently linked from anywhere. Perhaps it was. But it doesn't represent the official position of the church, does it? I can see why others might reach that conclusion, but doesn't someone who proclaims himself to be a Methodist Preacher have a duty to correct such a false impression. On this occasion, you are the one contributing to the trashing of our church's reputation.
Howard,
As I said before this blog does not welcome comments from those defending or excusing anti-Semitism.
Yours points:
1) Firstly if you are a Methodist, tell us who you are;
2) I can't take responsibility for the way in which others express themselves.
3) Once drawn to my attention Harris's diatribe was easy to find using the church's own search engine.
4) I don't want a repetitious conversation - Harris's article appeared on headed notepaper on the official Methodist site. The only evidence has that it is not official church policy is that it has been taken down. Until then there is no reason for anyone to think it was anything other than than official.
5) My blog item and interventions on various other sites has acted to set the record straight and correct the false impression that Harris's paper represented Methodist policy, though I still have serious doubts about the general thrust of official Methodist thinking towards Jews.
6) The reputation of the Methodist Church was thoroughly trashed the moment we allowed a tiny minority to declare hostilities against Israel and the Jewish community. I am trying to rescue that reputation. It is an uphill battle as we clearly have a number of well placed anti-Semites controlling the agenda. But this will be sorted. In time.
My name is Howard. I'm an ordinary Methodist. What do you want - a National Insurance number? I don't believe that we have "a number of well placed anti-Semites controlling the agenda". That's a dreadful thing to say. If you believe that, why be a Methodist? I'll leave the rest -- I just think you should be ashamed of yourself.
"Howard" as you call yourself. I don't need a national insurance number but I'm happy for you to contact me privately. Most people commenting on here are people I know or who are happy to let me know who they are - unless they are promoting racism or anti-Semitism, then I notice they go strangely coy - just as you have done.
You say:
"If you believe that, why be a Methodist? I'll leave the rest -- I just think you should be ashamed of yourself."
Actually I am thoroughly ashamed to be a member of a Christian denomination that has elements within it who are now clearly pursuing the age old Christian activity of belittling and attacking Jews. Even our President and Vice President of Conference write of Jews pouring urine over Arabs - an extremely strong indication of where they stand.
But why should these people - and "Howard" - make me leave the Church to which I have committed most of my adult life? I'm a key member of my own church. My wife is also a local preacher and comes from a family with nearly 150 years continuous membership. Other mebers of our family serve the Church in other ways.I've even written a book about the life of a local Methodist woman about which I give talks in addition to my preaching work.
How dare an anonymous anti-Semite such as yourself suggest I leave the church. Perhaps you and your fellow travellers should consider your own your position? We can manage without you.
David, I really do think that calling Howard an "anonymous anti-Semite" is a terrible accusation with no evidential basis. And I don't know who you're including in the "we" that can manage without him? Are you claiming to speak on behalf of all Methodists?
And yes, I'm signing as "anonymous" because I find your approach bullying and intimidating.
Another "Anonymous" who tries to defend the indefensible.
We Methodists who are not anti-Semitic can do without those who are. Tell me "Mr Anonymous", we know that you are afraid of an approach that is "bullying and intimidating" but where do you stand on the substantive issue?
Do you think Harris's paper really represents a Christian approach to the Holocaust? Or is your comment just a pusillanimous way of expressing your agreement. No wonder you are afraid to identify yourself.
Your attack on Howard was very unpleasant -- there was nothing in what he wrote that could be called anti-semitic. All he did was failed to agree with you.
And your abuse of those who prefer to comment anonymously is very unreasonable. You choose to allow anonymous comments, and then complain about those who leave them. But anonymous comments that agree with you attract no censure.
Thank you "anonymous" for taking so much interest in this blog. So where do you stand on the anti-Semitic stance taken by some in the Connexion? Or is that small beer compared with my outrageous insistence that it is wrong and ultimately dangerous? You's rather attack the messanger than hear the message!
Post a Comment