Where is the Church?

Canada Free Press ^ | Friday, July 1, 2005 | Zimbabwe Report

[Alexander Rubin]

Robert Mugabe's purge of the poor, code-named "Operation Murambatsvina", which has cut a swathe of destruction across the country and displaced more than a million Zimbabwean's from their homes and workplaces, must rank as the greatest single terrorist act for which he is ultimately responsible after Gukurahundi - the brutal campaign of the mid 1980s led by the notorious Fifth Brigade which resulted in the slaughter of between 20,000 and 40,000 Matabele.

...

As the horror of the Mugabe tsunami becomes clear for all to see, the question arises where is the Church in all this? Surely the Church has a role to play in condemning tyranny and calling delinquent rulers to account? Is it not the role of the Church to be a voice for the voiceless? Are there not historical precedents for the Church to offer shelter and sanctuary to the poor and homeless, and to victims of state-sponsored violence? And don't the citizens of so-called Christian countries traditionally look to the Church for moral and spiritual guidance, especially in turbulent and uncertain times? So where is the Church in all this mayhem and madness? What has been the Church's contribution to turning the country around from its present path to destruction?

[Alexander Rubin]

An excellent question: where -is- the Church when it comes to dealing with Mugabe?

[Cicero]

Mugabe has Communist connections. He was originally known as a Maoist. That means that the mainstream churches all give him a pass. Leftist dictators are free to slaughter without criticism.

[Alexander Rubin]

Ewww. Well, it just proves the authors' point (I believe that article was written by a few Zimbabweans, not just one)...

[jocon307]

Well, I'm not sure which Church the author is looking for, but I have read that the RC Bishop (or whoever) has spoken out in strong terms about this whole situation.

Of course, that just goes to show what "speaking out in strong terms" will accomplish.

[Hi Heels]

Yeah, all us Baptists, Mormons, Lutherans, Calvary, Four Square, Catholics, we all support the overall destruction of ANYONE! Heck yes,rape, pillage, murder, starvation, you name it!! As long as it's by leftist dictators. Yessiree. That's the creed of the churches. Yeppers. / sarc

Let's see. You state an opinion as a church leader, the pope or a minister, and a mob of people run up and scream "Separation of church and state!! Separation of church and state!!". But if something bad happens as a result of politics, it's "where are the churches"?

Seems to me that if the comments like "mainstream churches" supporting "leftist dictators" continues, the words "where are the churches" will become "what were the churches". Then you'll REALLY have something to celebrate.

[sgtbono2002]

What ever happened to Bishop Desmond Tutu, he did a swell job of leading his people to starvation.

[Cicero]

I didn't say all the Churches supported murder. But the MAINLINE church leadership has a distressing history of looking the other way when leftist atrocities are committed. The most famous instance is the National Council of Churches, which refused to stand up against persecution in the Soviet Union, China, or Cuba. Is the average mainstream Christian a Stalinist? No. But they seem content to put up with strange antics by their leaders.

Baptists aren't usually included under the mainline label.

[Hi Heels]

I think that's a might broad brush you paint with, and, on the whole, I adamantly disagree with you. My church works hard to bring people to Christ, feed the homeless and the hungry, clothe, teach, house, help anyone in need. We only have 60 members and we make a difference in our community and in our neighborhood. I think that's the norm, not the exception. Although you've backed off plenty from your original post, I still feel your comments are mean-spirted, too global and destructive not just to "mainstream religion" (as you see it), but to Christianity as a whole. Christians have enough criticism right now.Whether you consider Baptism mainstream or not is immaterial. They are one of the largest religious organizations in the world. And, no, I'm not baptist.

[Cicero]

I meant to say mainline, not mainstream. The term is in common use and well defined. It does not include either Baptists or Catholics, but is commonly used for the more socially acceptable, modernized liberal churches.

[Hi Heels]

That does not make your comments credible. I'm quite aware of the term "mainline" and it's definition. That does not support the argument that churches "all give him a pass. Leftist dictators are free to slaughter without criticism". Besides, perhaps your definition of "mainline" is not shared by some others. Kind of like your definition of religion.