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.
Sophistry?? How so?
The last sentence calls for the conversion of the Muslims to Christianity.
Read closely, it also calls for the conversion of the Jews. That's the standard issue Christian gospel. All men must come to faith in Christ in order to experience true peace, both with God and with their fellow man. Temporal salvation is predicated on true eternal salvation.
You are correct in saying there is a Jewish religion and a civil state of Israel. You assert that the citizens of Israel are under attack by Muslims because of the actions of the civil state. That is incorrect. Muslims hate Jews and are dedicated to eradicating them from the face of the Earth as they have done in Muslim-controlled countries.
The persistent attacks against Israel are not in response to actions taken by the government, they are done in pursuit of the goals of Islam.
Second point: OK, now you have complicated that matter by a factor of two. You are calling for both Jews and Muslims to be converted to Christianity. You and I and Ann Coulter have a long wait on that one.
To be a real church the people of the Church must know Jesus personally. For many church is a social club and makes them feel good but they have very little knowledge of the real Jesus Christ nor of the righteousness of God.
To be a real church the people of the Church must know Jesus personally. For many church is a social club and makes them feel good but they have very little knowledge of the real Jesus Christ nor of the righteousness of God.
> Signs of rising Protestant anti-Semitism?
Pains my heart to see it, though I suspect it is only the left-wing Protestants who are laying this hand of cards on the table. I'm happy to report that my ELCA pastors are, not only conservative in outlook, but very anti-antisemitic.
After all, the Jews are God's chosen people. If, through sins of their own, they require corrective discipline, I leave it up to the Lord and don't consider it my place to try to put the screws to them, as so many are wont to do.
Are you sure?
Quite sure. Sometimes RC church opinion isn't worth spit.
Even though you're probably right about this particular denomination not representing most, I still stand by my remarks. You might want to check out the National Council of Churches web site.
Oh, I know about the NCC. They are as far left as you can get and support ONLY 'Rats who support abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, higher taxes, etc.
I had never heard of these people. I used to attend a Pentecostal church that at all times reminded everyone of the promise of God to those who bless Israel.
On the other hand the church hierarchy in the Disciples of Christ is as corrupt as any church hierarchy before it, which is why the Christian Church movement recommended NEVER filling the position of Bishop (or higher).
The Disciples definitely fell into the pit of Babylon when they created the Minister General.
It didn't work for Rome, and it doesn't work here. Time to give it up.
That's why we know the resolution was antisemitic.
There are other Presidents who were members or had been members.
BTW, just because you never heard of DoC doesn't mean they don't exist and haven't been influential.
Previous threads explain the structure, the relationships, etc. DoC is "part" of a far larger movement called "the Christian Church Movement".
We must be precise in our translations, eh?!
BTW, ROTFLMAOPMP
The Disciples of Christ are better known as the First Christian Church.
Try Alexander Campbell. You can even look up early Mormon history (if that makes you more comfortable) and run into these guys ~ one branch of the early DoC ran off with Smith and Young in fact.
The Christian Church Movement is an outgrowth of the Restoration movement (not to be confused with the Reconstructionist movement).
Although DoC usually runs from 1.5 to 2.0 million in estimated membership (which counts ONLY baptised adults), the closely related independent Christian Church has about that many, and the Church of Christ (non-instrumental), theologically identical and sharing the same origins, but they sing a capala in the round, has more.
All told there are well over 10 million people (adults, children) who have some affiliation with one of these churches ~ however, ONLY the DoC makes resolutions.
As an item of interest, some members of the Christian Church (any of the three major divisions) believe adornment in the form of hats or jewelry constitutes idolotry. This is sometimes viewed as antisemitic by Jews who are shocked if a member of one of these churches refuses to don a yarmulka at a Jewish event. It's not antisemitic ~ and these guys don't necessarily bow their heads at prayer, and would probably have a full blow-out if required to kneel at an altar railing. I can only imagine what would happen to them in the presence of a Shi'ite going through the "let's pretend" handwashing before prayers. And the Pope? Can you see the reaction to a papal crown? My word! Shock, I tell you, shock ~ that's what they'd feel.
Depends ~ ever since the Rev. Jim Jones convinced his followers to drink purple coolaid, many congregations with that name "First Christian", LEFT and are part of the Independent branch.
You make a serious error when you lump the independent Churches of Christ with this group. The Church of Christ in no way resembles the description you give above. You need to check out the facts before painting with such a wide brush.
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.