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.
Signs of rising Protestant anti-Semitism?
You got that right. The upper echelon leadership of most protestant denominations are leaning farther and farther to the left, and a lot of the parishoners of those churches have no idea what their leadership stands for.
Those "abstract facts" sure annoy the Left, don't they?
It's almost understandable when liberals don't recognize "evil". However, when "church" members don't recognize it, something is truly amiss.
Say what? The leadership in most Protestant churches isn't leaning left. They fell flat on the floor and began to dig into the earth decades ago. Only the parishioners left in their dead churches don't know.
If they are so mainline how come I've never heard of them?
I've got to say: I've never once heard of this denomination. Disciples of Christ was it? I've never heard of it.
I think you can rest assured that most Christian organizations are not anti-semetic, and that the majority of people in Christian organizations - even those that have anti-semitic leaders - will remain in favor of Israel.
Many of those leaders are far from "flat on the floor." They are very activist leftists. Check out the web site for the National Council of Churches.
Reported.
I have NO respect for this cult branch of the Protestant Church at all.
This is the only normal view in the article.
Keep in mind that there are a LOT of so called "Christian" churches/groups who are NOT really Christians. They are big social clubs, who are basically clueless about the Bible, and what Jesus would really do. IMO, they are cults. The MSM creates a lot of these problems because they distort the truth about what's really going on with the situation over there. They ALWAYS make the Israelis look like the aggressors.
Exactly. I find it very telling that the one line blurb that you get if you Google them, states that they are a "mainline" denomination. Who are they trying to convince? The truth is that they are just another wishy-washy, two-bit liberal/ecumenical group, with no real, uncompromisable, core beliefs, trying to make the rest of us believe otherwise.
In terms of membership, they are a relatively small group. They claim 800,000 members while the Southern Baptists claim 16 million, the Presbyterian Church USA claims 2.4 million and the Assemblies of God claim 1.6 million (to name a few). So the bottom line is - Who really cares what they think?
I second that. Preach the faith, not the politics. G-d knows, people today have too little of the former and far too much of the latter.
The PCUSA is also anti-Isreal. I left them for the Presbyterian Church in America 10 years ago now, it is refreshing to be in a church that teaches Scripture and stays away from social activism.
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.