Posted on 08/07/2005 9:24:34 PM PDT by SmithL
On July 27 the General Assembly of the Disciples of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination, called upon Israel "to tear down the barrier fence." The resolution, originally entitled "Tear Down the Wall," was renamed, more ambiguously, "Breaking Down the Dividing Wall," though it remained rife with factual errors and retained the original intent.
The resolution does not deny that Israel built the fence "to shield itself against terrorist attacks," or that the fence has succeeded in saving a great number of lives (including some would-be bombers?). Yet it still demands the security barrier's removal.
Why? Because, according to the resolution, the existence of a physical barrier is creating a psychological barrier to true peace, more "visually and spiritually... devastating than abstract facts can convey."
As the amended resolution states, "By breaking down walls that separate, we actively seek peace and reconciliation in the world in an attempt to follow Jesus' example." Or as one member argued, "Every day the wall grows, the prospect for a genuine peace... diminishes."
Translation? Israelis cannot be counted on to make peace without a knife at their throats.
After reading this document it's hard not to conclude that these members have, while remaining fully in touch with their emotions, completely lost touch with "the abstract facts" of real life.
Look again at the date: 15 days after the Netanya suicide bombing. Four days after a would-be bomber was intercepted climbing the fence. If these facts do not demonstrate that completing the fence is necessary to save lives, then what would?
But this still doesn't answer the question of why two-thirds of these presumably life-loving Christians voted yes on this resolution, asking the State of Israel to put its citizens' lives in even greater peril.
It appears that many, perhaps even most, of those who voted did not actually get around to reading the document. This was not entirely the fault of most delegates since the resolution was introduced just days before the conference as an "emergency resolution" and rewritten again about 36 hours before the vote. Most other resolutions had been submitted by a January deadline, five months ahead.
In this way, the authors of the resolution succeeded not only in preventing any real study or discussion before the vote, and in delaying it until the last day of an exhausting conference, but also in framing the debate, so that to vote against it was tantamount to standing up and declaring oneself a person who no longer believes in peace.
But why did the assembly not listen to those members and their guests who opposed the resolution? The sad answer is that, for the most part, they were not given the opportunity.
Tzippi Cohen, a survivor of the Cafe Hillel suicide bombing, was not allowed to speak, ostensibly because she was not a voting member, even though she had flown in from New York hoping for the chance to address the assembly for one to three minutes.
However, Palestinian guest Rula Shubeita, of Jerusalem's Sabeel Center, was permitted to speak in favor of the resolution. Her center calls itself the "Palestinian Liberation Theology Center" and features a paean to the late Yasser Arafat on its homepage entitled, "A Word of Respect and Esteem for a Great Leader."
Shubeita told the delegates, "Because of the wall, I cannot see my brother, who lives three miles away on the other side of the fence. I now must drive 14 miles to see him." She also claimed that she can no longer visit her church in Bethlehem at all.
Actually, Shubeita, can see her brother, though she has to drive 11 miles out of her way. She omitted to say that since the arrival of PA rule and its unleashing of criminal and Islamic terror gangs, most of Bethlehem's Christians have fled to Israel and elsewhere. Bethlehem, once 80% Christian, is now less than 20%. So while she can still likely visit the church most days, it's also likely that when she gets there, most pews are empty.
Yet two-thirds of the Disciples of Christ delegates declared themselves more concerned with a Palestinian's right to drive directly to her destination than with an Israeli's right to retain her arms and legs intact; and they were clearly more interested in blaming all miseries on Israel than in helping Palestinians replace a corrupt and dysfunctional PA with something more democratic.
This was after a vigorous but limited discussion by those few who, at the last moment, somehow managed to speak.
Most eloquently, dissenting member Ken Britton of Cloverdale, Indiana, said: "For decades Israel offered land for peace - and peace hasn?t happened. If we vote for this, we are telling Israel that we don?t care about you and we don't care about terrorism, and that you have no right to exist."
The writer lives in Portland, Oregon. The vigil outside the conference was sponsored by Stand With Us, in partnership with the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel and the Judeo-Christian Alliance.
The other thread was pulled as duplicate. I just read about this in the past day or two. Disgusting.
Oh, and I meant to add:
I AM A PROUD SUPPORTER OF ISRAEL!
To use the term "mainline" protestants is to confuse the situation. Many people do not realize what the term means. "Mainline" has become synonymous with "heresy." The "mainline" denominations are to Christians as the ADL is to devout Jews. That is to say, they reject the authority of the Word in favor of their own wicked desires.
Sad, isn't it, that the church has chosen to inject itself this way in politics. And for the wrong side, imo.
And I know you are a proud supporter of Israel. It's part of what makes you the extraordinary person you are....that you don't fall for propoganda.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Disciples of Christ are not representative of majority of mainline Protestants and are small in numbers. I don't even know why they are included in this category.
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
Good question. Me too!
Hold your horses here. The "Disciples of Christ" are NOT "mainline Christians". I have never even heard of them until now. This is like attaching Phelps (of the godhatesfags.com) to the Southern Baptist just because he calls his church "Baptist".
I'm not surprised. I knew that one of the Presbyterian denominations was very liberal. My only point was that this little DoC cult is far from "mainline" in size (probably should have included the Episcopalians and the Lutherans in the comparison too). In fact, the only thing that seems to make the DoC "mainline" (I always thought the term was "mainSTREAM") is that they say that they are.
Hardly. This is what happens when folks confuse politics with religion. Pointing out the problems of the secular state of Israel is no more anti-Semitic than pointing out the problems of the Palestinians are, well, anti-Semitic
The fact is that neither Israel nor the Palestinians have a, air-tight, morally defensible position of the land issue.
There will never be true peace until both sides unilaterally and without equivocation accept the Prince of Peace as their Lord and King.
While many of the mainline protestant churches today are apostate liberals lacing in genuine faith, that does not neccessitate that true Christians should not be active in the political process. God, throughout Scripture exhorts His people to govern His creation well with a strong emphasis on justice for all. Sound familiar?
I am not saying that Christians and Jews should not be active in the political process, at all levels, but that when your church has a problem with doctrine and faith, a little less politics and a little more faith is a good thing.
Not buying it. Nice try.
Surprisingly, I agree. Tear down the fence; kick out the Arabs!
The problem with many of the so-called, mainline protestant denominations is that since they are bankrupt in the faith, and many ruled by leftist infiltrators, all that is left for them is their politics instead of God.
Not buying what?
. . . with the Roman Catholic Church
Among those churches which are not members of the WCC, the most notable is the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Since 1965 a Joint Working Group (JWG), co-sponsored by the WCC and the RCC, has met regularly to discuss issues of common interest and promote cooperation. The group meets annually. One of the church and ecumenical relations staff members serves as co-secretary for the JWG and helps to coordinate contact between the Council and the dicasteries of the Vatican through the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. [And] . . . Though the Roman Catholic Church is not a member of the WCC, it is a full member of the Faith & Order Commission. The RCC also serves the team on Mission & Evangelism in a consultative capacity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.