Sunday, February 27, 2005
That's what one non-Jewish supporter of Israel suggests in this Jerusalem Post Op-Ed in reponse to the WCC's decision to divest from Israel (see my previous post here).
Dexter Van Zile writes:
The dominoes are falling against Israel. First, US colleges embraced the cause of divestment, next the Anglican Church announced that it was studying the issue, then the Presbyterian Church (USA) adopted the policy – and last week the World Council of Churches encouraged denominations to do the same.
It looks bad; but Jews need to understand that lay members of Christian churches remain firm in their support for the Jewish state. Jews need to reach out to Protestants in the pews of the churches that fund the WCC, telling them that the council isn't worthy of their support and that it's time to start a divestment campaign of their own – against the WCC.
Jews might be surprised at the response they get. US Christians stopped listening to the WCC long ago. Many still have not forgiven it for giving $85,000 to the Patriotic Front of Zimbabwe in 1978, months after the group shot down an airliner, killing 38 of the 56 passengers on board. Terrorists killed 10 survivors.
American Christians know the WCC has a history of supporting violent "liberation" movements in Central America, Africa and East Asia.
They know the WCC ignored the plight of dissidents behind the Iron Curtain and "built bridges" with killers and tyrants, just as leaders from the Presbyterian Church (USA) recently extended offers of friendship to Hizbullah, a group that killed 241 US Marines in 1983.
The reaction of Presbyterian lay members was so strong that two church employees were fired for meeting with Hizbullah, demonstrating where the denomination's true power and conscience rest – in the pews, not in the minds of the movement's theologians...
I think people who watch what WCC actually does would see it as a front set up by leftist that actually has nothing christian in its makeup or actions..
You can see some samples of Christian hate here in some links I found in Pravda English main forum:
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=119553
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=119467
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=119550
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=119382
Well, this is a much larger question than will be settled on any blog.
First, I want to say The World Council of Churches pretty much left Christianity behind years ago when they returned to gnosticism, a philosophy considered heresy throughout the history of the Church. That does not mean they have no power. They have a very significant amount of power. Unfortunately, they still claim to be Christian and give Christianity a really bad name.
Second, the problems of heritance and theo-preference afflicting the Middle East have existed for millenia, and are not going to resolve any time soon. The US is not going to resolve them. The WCC is not going to resolve them. No Church is going to resolve them. George W. is not going to resolve them. (Someone needs to tell the man that if he is a Christian president, he should not be attempting to fulfill the prophecies pertaining to the anti-Christ.)
It might be more effective to send a group of Middle Eastern family therapists (perhaps under armed guard for their personal safety) to peace talks in the Middle East than to send professional peace-makers or missionaries. The problems in the Middle East are based on family issues gone wrong for some 5,000 years. This is the problem with intergenerational trauma and resentment. Eventually, they get bigger than life. As an aside, I have to say the Middle Eastern men I have known (and I am purposefully not naming any country or religion here because they have represented more than one of each) have been world-class experts in execting revenge for things that do not even apply, and in ways that leave one's very soul pulverized and raw for generations to come. But, then, look at their role-model: Abraham, God's friend. He may well have been God's friend, but as far as I can tell from reading the Bible and the Q'uran, he wasn't much of a father, and those are 2 very different types of relationships.
If one wants to solve the problems in the Middle East with the Bible and the Q'uran, one has to stop picking out the verses and phrases that support one's stance and ignoring the rest of it. God did make certain promises to Abraham about Isaac, and He did make certain promises to Abraham about Ishmael. Isaac and Ishmael had enough of a relationship, in spite of their mothers' on-going conflict, that they buried their father together. The Bible we have today does not mention the relationship between Isaac, Ishmael, and any children of Ketoorah, but one can extrapolate from geography and history that relationships did and do exist.
I do not read or speak Arabic, so I cannot claim to have actually read the Q'uran, but I read the English translation of it. I do not read Hebrew or Greek, so I cannot claim to have actually read the Bible, but I read English and Spanish translations of it. It seems that the 2 books are not so divergent as we are led by Christian fundamentalists to believe they are. It also seems that much like modern Christians have distorted the Bible for the past 2000 years, modern Muslims have also distorted the Q'uran for the past, what? 1600 years. They are both large volumes of literature, large enough that they can be misused to support any number of stances by taking verses and phrases out of context. A dangerous game, that one.
As much as I do not believe the Apostle Paul knew anything about women (and has been perhaps unintentionally responsible for about 2 millenia of husband-on-wife spousal abuse in the Christian Church), when he does not talk about women, a lot of the rest of what he said makes sense. I have in mind the directive, "Insofar as is possible for you, be at peace with all men." Here's something for Christians to chew on regarding the Middle East: What about not taking sides?
That does not mean not taking stances against violence, but rather, taking stances against all violence. That does not mean supporting Jews or Muslims, but supporting Jews AND Muslims.
Israel is NOT "all wrong," and the Jewish people absolutely need a homeland.
Palestine is NOT "all wrong," and the Palestinian people absolutely need a homeland.
Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan are NOT "all wrong," and the Irani, Iraqi, and Afghani people absolutely need homelands.
(As do the Tsalagi, the Cha'tah, the Akanabi, etc., etc., etc., but that's a different issue, perhaps more related than would initially appear.)
Etc., etc., etc.
Nor are any of these nations "all right."
The problems in the Middle East are complex and bigger than life. To date, nothing has worked in resolving them. It may be that nothing will. It may be that vengeance-as-a-value is so deeply entrenched in the Middle East that Christians do not have a snow-ball's chance in hell of helping to bring about any sort of resolution to what are over-the-top, maximally dysfunctional, FAMILY problems there. It is certain that Christians will never bring about any resolution there by picking and choosing to support the progeny of Sarah, or Hagar and Ketourah, over the other's progeny.
If Christians want to be involved in the resolution of the problems in the Middle East they need to work some ancient and modern Middle Eastern history into their praising Jesus so they will at least have a clue about what they are getting into. I know this much from excuciatingly painful personal experience.
I do not know what to suggest regarding the neo-gnosticism of the WCC. I do know from excruciatingly painful personal experience that they are very organized, very powerful, and very, very unethical.