Posted on 06/25/2005 5:00:44 AM PDT by sionnsar
A few days ago, the Anglican Consultative Council took a small step toward sanity. Yesterday, however, it took a giant leap back toward its usual moral bankruptcy, unanimously passing this thing:
The Anglican Consultative Council:
a) welcomes the September 22nd 2004 statement by the Anglican Peace and Justice Network on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict (Pages 12 - 14 of the Report)
b) commends the resolve of the Episcopal Church (USA) to take appropriate action where it finds that its corporate investments support the occupation of Palestinian lands or violence against innocent Israelis, and
i) commends such a process to other Provinces having such investments, to be considered in line with their adopted ethical investment strategies
ii) encourages investment strategies that support the infrastructure of a future Palestinian State
c) requests the Office of the Anglican Observer to the United Nations, through or in association with the UN Working Committee on Peace in the Middle East, as well as through this Council, and as a priority of that Office, to support and advocate the implementation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338 directed towards peace, justice and co-existence in the Holy Land.
The idea disgusts the Telegraph:
The Christian West has a marked, and growing, prejudice against the state of Israel that the government of that country ignores at its peril. The latest instance will be laid before the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham tomorrow, in the form of a recommendation that the 38 provinces of the worldwide Anglican Communion should consider divesting themselves of holdings in companies that support the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The recommendation stems from a report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict issued last September by the Anglican Peace and Justice Network (APJN). One of its main backers is Bishop Riah Hanna Abu El-Assal of Jerusalem, who hosted the network’s delegation during a 10-day visit.
The report is a piece of sanctimonious claptrap whose authors didn’t even bother to talk to Ariel Sharon’s government. It takes scant account of the trauma to which the second intifada has subjected Israeli civilians and endorses policies, such as the right of return of Palestinian refugees since 1948, that would spell the death of the Jewish state. It has rightly been condemned by, among others, the International Council of Christians and Jews, Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Sir Jonathan Sachs, the Chief Rabbi.
Tomorrow, a report is to be debated by the Anglican Consultative Council calling on the Church of England to disinvest from companies which support Israel’s ‘occupation’ of the disputed territories. Virtually to a man (and woman) the CofE’s hierarchy have completely swallowed the lies and libels of Palestinian propaganda. The visceral hatred of Israel felt by these churchmen is matched only by their stupendous ignorance of Israel’s history and present circumstances. The astounding moral inversion of right and wrong, truth and lies, murderer and victim in their thinking about Israel has been fed by three principal factors: the systematic and malevolent distortion of Israel’s history pumped out by Christian aid agencies; pilgrimages to the Christian holy places which are almost all in Arab areas, so that British pilgrims who know nothing about Israel or the Jews spend the whole trip in the company of Palestinian tour guides, hotel staff and so forth and scarcely speak to any Israelis and thus return to Britain full of hatred for Israel and the Jews; and the very close friendship between many in the CofE hierarchy and radical Palestinian Christian clerics such as Bishop Riah of Jerusalem, who have spent years attempting to provide a theological justification for writing Jews out of Israel’s historical script altogether.
As a result, as I reported in the Spectator three years ago, the Cof E’s astonishing ignorance of the history of Jewish nationhood in Judea, Samaria and Galilee gives off a strong whiff of supercessionist replacement theology, the doctrine going back to the early church fathers which stated that all God’s promises to the Jews -- including the land of Israel -– were forfeit because the Jews had denied the divinity of Christ, a doctrine which lay behind centuries of Christian anti-Jewish hatred until the Holocaust drove it underground.
And Peter Glover:
Is there, I wonder, a better way for the modern Anglican Church to embarrass itself once more in terms of its international credibility and moral standing before the world? Off-hand I cannot think of one.
The report, drawn up by that bastion of the unbiblical ’social gospel’ Christianity the Anglican Justice and Peace Network, is to be debated tomorrow by the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in Nottingham, England. The ACC is the international body that makes recommendations to the 75-million strong Anglican Communion throughout the world.
The report calls for the Church to put pressure on firms deemed to be supporting controversial Israeli policies such as the building of the security fence or the clearing of Palestinian homes. It does not, however, at any stage take into account the reasons for building the fence, the prevalence of murderous Palestinian attacks upon ordinary Israeli citizens, nor the fact that Arab suicide bombings and other attacks have dropped significantly since it was built.
Let me interpose a question. If your home and family were continually threatened with murderous violence from angry neighbours who would see your point of view, hated you, demanded your land for themselves, and wanted to drive you and your loved ones ’into the sea’, would you not think of building a fence to protect them? I would be out with the hammer and nails today.
While Anglican stalwart Greg Griffith may just wash his hands of the Anglican tradition altogether:
This is, perhaps, "it" for me, the beginning of the end of my affiliation with Anglicanism. The Anglican Consultative Council’s vote on a resolution on divestment from Israel is not simply a show of disapproval of Israel and its policies, but a show of solidarity with Palestinian terrorists.
My shame of being associated with this church has sunk to a new low.
This resolution is not a surprise; ethical cowardice is one the marks of mainline Christianity. What does surprise and depress is the breadth of this resolution's support. It was adopted unanimously which means that even the "conservative" ACC representatives voted for it. If this vote is any indication of support for this idea in orthodox Anglican provinces, then I don't see how it is remotely possible for me to remain an Anglican.
Take this resolution's pathetically lame attempt at even-handedness, "where it finds that its corporate investments support the occupation of Palestinian lands or violence against innocent Israelis." Lots of American companies making millions selling bomb vests and Semtex to the Palestinians, are there? No, actually. Although they will fiercely deny this, the plain and simple fact of the matter is that the Anglican Communion has chosen sides.
Anglicans boast about their intellects; we don't check our brains at the church house door, they tell you. But in this case, the Anglican Communion has willfully chosen to ignore 2,000 years of history, the 60-year history of the State of Israel, the four major wars launched by Muslim nations in an attempt to wipe Israel off the map, the refusal by Jordan to allow Jews to visit the Western Wall during the Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem, the thousands of Israeli men, women and children murdered over the years, the refusal of the Palestinians to do anything substantive about genocidal murderers like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others, the virulent anti-Semitism of Muslim societies, particularly the one right next to Israel, the fact that Palestinians are entirely willing to take advantage of Israeli generosity in order to kill Jews, the fact that Israelis mourned 9/11 while Palestinians celebrated it and just about every page in their Bibles. Among other things.
But many Palestinians are Christians. So what? The sad fact is that many of the worst anti-Semites in the world go to church on Sundays. First up is the Catholic Hilarion Capucci who was once convicted of running guns for the Palestinians. Greek Orthodox Atallah Hanna publicly supported suicide bombing. The head of the Coptic Church, Pope Shenouda III, refuses to set foot in Jerusalem while Jews control it and refuses to allow other Copts to go there either. And last but not least, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, Riah Abu El-Assal, once accused the Israeli army of deliberatly firing a missle at a Gaza church and hospital. And these four men did not arise in a vacuum.
Yeah, I know. John 13:34-35.
But let me put it this way. If you're going to run guns to the murderers of Jews, if you're going to applaud the murderers of innocent men, women and children because you think your cause is just, if you refuse to visit a place simply because Jews control it and if you're comfortable writing the most vile lies about Jews to advance your politcal agenda, don't expect me to take your side simply because you and I share a religion.
Then there's this:
When they came to the nations, wherever they went, they profaned My holy name--when they said of them, "These are the people of the LORD, and yet they have gone out of His land.’ But I had concern for My holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations wherever they went. Therefore say to the house of Israel, "Thus says the Lord GOD: "I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went(Ezekiel 36:20-22)."
Since He died on the Cross for my sins, I have an intense desire to uphold and defend the name and reputation of Jesus. So how in the world am I supposed to explain or justify this Anglican resolution to the parents of this person? Or the parents of this person? Or the parents of this person? Or the boyfriend of this young woman? Or the father of this little boy? And how can I explain this resolution to those Israelis who have survived suicide bombings, some of whom will spend the rest of their lives in agony?
When I left ECUSA in August, 2003, I knew, for a variety of reasons, that finding a new church home might take me years. I now realize that it might take me even longer than that. I know that finding a church one doesn't have to apologize for now and then is a tall order. But if the idea introduced by this insidious resolution, that Israel is the villain of the Middle East conflict, ever becomes acceptable even in orthodox Anglican provinces, my Anglican days will be over.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. But if the idea ... that Israel is the villain of the Middle East conflict ever becomes acceptable in ... Anglican provinces, my Anglican days will be over.
I can't argue with either statement, nor would I want to try.
Two timely and excellent comments:
"If you're going to run guns to the murderers of Jews, if you're going to applaud the murderers of innocent men, women and children because you think your cause is just, if you refuse to visit a place simply because Jews control it and if you're comfortable writing the most vile lies about Jews to advance your politcal agenda, don't expect me to take your side simply because you and I share a religion."
"But if the idea ... that Israel is the villain of the Middle East conflict ever becomes acceptable in ... Anglican provinces, my Anglican days will be over."
We are now in a time where there is some potential for peace. A key element of this is for the Palestinians to abjure and halt terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. How in Heaven's name does singling out the Israeli side for punishment while absolving Palestinians of terrorism do anything to help solve this conflict at the present time? It does not encourage the Palestinians to seek peace, but only to become more intransigent. It is quite disgusting in its one-sidedness. One might expect this kind of agenda from the Communist International, but not the Anglican Communion.
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.