Tuesday, December 6, 2005
The Judeo-Christian Alliance has released a backgrounder concerning Presbyterian Church (USA) contacts with Hizballah.
Since June 2004, officials from the Presbyterian Church (USA) have met at least three times with representatives from Hezbollah, an Iranian- and Syrian backed terror organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the U.S. and to the creation of an Islamist state in Lebanon.
Some Presbyterian leaders have attempted to characterize these meetings as efforts to promote peace in the Middle East. In fact these meetings legitimize a group that murders Israeli civilians and which seeks to turn Lebanon into a radical Islamist state.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) is not the only church whose officials have met with Hezbollah, but it is by far the worst offender. Despite Hezbollah’s undeniable efforts to kill Israeli civilians, officials from the Presbyterian Church (USA) have continued to meet with this group...
These P. Church officials are only acting according to the dictate of conscience, having asked themselves: What would Jesus do?
But it seems their Gospel includes words the rest of us have never read: Give unto the Devil that which he wants.
Very much related, from the Middle East Quarterly: Hezbollah's Strategic Threat to Israel. (And MEQ articles are consistently well documented.)
This issue with the PC(USA) and other churches reflects on those in the pews just as much if not moreso than the leadership. If those in the pews are so committed to these programs or to the leadership which initiates these programs - or by contrast are apathetic or passive or simply uninformed about these types of issues then the blame belongs four-square upon those in the pews. With the internet and the blogosphere this is even more true than it was previously since it's now easier to be much better informed about the complexities involved in these types of issues.
One of the problems is that, though there is a plethora of good information on the internet, there is also a plethora of really bad information and analysis, with very little way for the layman or casual observer to sort the wheat from the chaff.
That's why so many people wind up taking the easy way out and splitting the difference -- the fallacy of the golden mean.
Yes, that's a perfectly valid caution which serves to temper what I had indicated. But it does not nullify it, certainly not so for a majority or at least a pivotal or substantial plurality of those in the pews. In the end it certainly depends upon the individual and that individual's situation, while we can only speak in general terms, and that serves to inform a warranted caution when it comes to excessively or too readily moralizing about these types of things, but it does not serve to exonerate a critical number of those in the pews. This is not a time for mass quietude, passivity, apathy, etc. It is a time, at some level, for informed opinion and well measured execution and assertiveness.
I think you'll find an increasing number of people in the pews are discovering what's been done in their names and are none too happy about it. For instance: http://blog.pcusaelders.org/ and http://www.ucctruths.com
That's good news, and to further clarify I certainly was not intending to criticise everyone "in the pews" in toto and therein throw out the baby with the bath water. So, I don't wish to cause any unnecessary offense - only the necessary stuff.
I'm a Presbyterian, and I have to admit Michael B is right in the main. In theory, the governance of the PC(USA) is ultimately dependent on the membership. Unfortunately a bureaucracy has kind of grown up in that denomination that lets things like divestment or Hezbollah visits go on; and that bureaucracy is firmly entrenched. But the responsibility for correcting this rests with the members of the church.
The earliest real opportunity for members to address this is the next General Assembly in June, 2006. I'm hoping this can be reigned in at that point. If not, then the membership will be complicit -- giving its approval by innaction.
Thank you Will, for understanding the tone or essence of what I was attempting to communicate, you articulate it more succinctly than I and I appreciate the sense you bring to bear on the issue, both here and at your own blog. It is, bureaucratically and in other respects, a complex and "entrenched" issue and I didn't intend to moralize in any type of presumptuous, reductionist or facile sense, so thanks again for understanding what I was attempting to communicate.