Thursday, October 28, 2010

Antisemitism redefined

Good morning God,
A very distressing and disturbed night. I have been following and participating in a blogged debate on the Church's report on Justice for Israel Palestine and the bizarre threat of one Methodist to take the Church to court over its contents. 
There can be no doubt that the report has raised some emotive issues, but that is no excuse for the appalling lack of grace in some of the posts.When Christians slander one another, evil flourishes.

The charge being made against the Church and certain individuals is of Antisemitism.. a charge designed to raise the spectre of the Holocaust and shame us all into silence - regardless of what atrocities are currently being perpetrated. In a nutshell the argument is - Gentiles committed the holocaust therefore the Gentiles have forever forfeited the right to censor a Jew. Any and all criticism of Jews or of Israel by Gentiles is antisemitic.

This is, however,  a shallow and dishonest definition of antisemitism. It mocks and makes a lie of the past by reducing it to a vacuous insistence that it is never politically, spiritually or socially 'correct' to criticize or question anything Jewish or Israeli.


I have spoken out against some of the abuses of power in  Zimbabwe - but I am not anti-african
I have protested the Catholic Church's policy on the use of condoms - but I am not anti-catholic



It is time to put the fear of being called antisemitic into perspective:


It is not antisemitic to seek to be informed about the current plight of the ordinary Palestinian
It is not antisemitic to be offended by the wall
It is not antisemitic to question why human rights are being denied to Palestinians in Israel.
It is not antisemitic to ask what can we do to which might help Palestinians.


It IS antisemitic to not question or challenge any of these things, to hate the Jew so much that we would be prepared to stand by and watch whilst they perhaps commit crimes against You and against humanity which we know from our own bitter experience will only result in long-lasting spiritual, social and political damage.

It IS antisemitic to allow religious fundamentalism, be it Christian, Jewish or Islamic to narrowly define what it is to be Jewish based on some literal interpretation of a few verses of the Hebrew Scriptures (texts which many Jews enjoy endlessly debating!)



But more to the point - you have taught us repeatedly God that it is not right define and limit a human being by the happenstance of where they were born or to whom. It was incredibly costly to teach us that in YOU there is neither Gentile nor Jew. Our human divisions and habit of 'taking sides' is an anathema to you. It is not antisemitic to love the Palestinian, it is not an either-or situation. Not all Jews are in support of the wall, not all Palestinians are members of Hammas, but all Jews and all Palestinians are your children God.

Methodists believe that Christian conferring is a means of grace - we extend that and say all Godly dialogue is a means of grace, ie a way to grow closer to you God and to one another. Such dialogue cannot begin with accusations, but by invitations. The report 'Justice for Israel/Palestine' was produced in response to a request by Methodists for information for Methodists about the plight of the Palestinians - it therefore naturally has more to say about the Palestinian than about the Jew.  If people feel that this creates an imbalance, the solution is simple, I invite those Methodists who think that we are antisemitic to use our Church procedures to request a report on the state of Israel and the evils of antisemitism. No doubt that will not only enlighten and inform Methodists but also lead to further controversy as the Church struggles with its past, for the sake of its future. What I am confident of, however, is that such a report would be well written and would receive a warm welcome.
What isn't welcomed are the current ungracious comments, accusations and slander.

91 comments:

  1. Hi Angela,

    I appreciate your concern for the reputation of the Church and your alarm at the hostile nature of debate about Zionism. I would suggest that these are the bad fruit of the original Methodist report. I understand you may disagree and would protest your virtue in this matter - and it is not for me to judge you either.

    You are perhaps right to say that not all the Methodist boycotters are anti-Semites, but people who aren't evil anti-Semites have still been capable of making very terrible and wrong judgements about Jewish communities because they think this is the will of God.

    As a believer in Christ with huge admiration for the Wesley brothers and affection for Methodists, I would indeed like to request a report on the evils of antisemitism. That would be splendid.

    I think however you should take onboard the anxieties of many British Jews about the nature of the Methodist report which cited Israel as the only country in the world which merits a boycott, which is directly related to the Jews breaking God's covenants. (at least, according to Nichola Jones, who oversaw this report).

    I would welcome a report noting how replacement theology, supercessionism and anti-Semitism have directly informed the attitude of many Christians towards the Jews, that this still continues today, and offering ways forward to move beyond these challenges.

    You may also reflect on how the original document was put together, why calls for balance were specifically rejected by the working group, and why Stephen Leah calls for a boycott of all Israel and not just settlement goods.

    This would be very gracious of yourself and of the Methodist Church, and would be warmly appreciated by many Jews and Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you so much Angie for this post. It really is a breath of fresh, sane air into a conversation which has become stifling. Bless you for your trademark clarity!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The accusation that "Jews use the charge of antisemitism to suppress criticism of Israel" is a well-known and baseless debating device beloved of antisemites. The Report to the Methodist conference was deeply antisemitic because it drew on 'replacement theology' and used the 'chosen people' phrase in a knowingly mendacious way.

    It's 'Game On' thanks to David Hallam. See you in Court, Angie.

    Jonathan Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
  4. I disagree most vehemently that the report drew on "replacement theology". Again, I say that this accusation is a result of not understanding Christian theology.

    Replacement theology is "Christians are God's chosen people and the Jews are not".

    Christian theology - and I do understand that non-Christians may not or will not agree with the theology - is "The covenant that God made with Abraham was intended for all people, including most especially the Jews".

    This whole debate is another good reason for properly understanding Christian theology.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You are free to disagree. The Courts will decide.

    Here was the statement of the Board of Deputies of British Jews (of which I am a member:)

    This is a very sad day, both for Jewish-Methodist relations and for everyone who wants to see positive engagement with the complex issues of Israeli-Palestinian relations. The Methodist Conference has swallowed hook, line and sinker a report full of basic historical inaccuracies, deliberate misrepresentations and distortions of Jewish theology and Israeli policy. The deeply flawed report is symptomatic of a biased process: The working group which wrote the report had already formed its conclusions at the outset. External readers were brought in to give the process a veneer of impartiality, but their criticisms were rejected. The report’s authors have abused the trust of ordinary members of the Methodist Church, who assumed that they were reading and voting on an impartial and comprehensive paper, and they have abused the goodwill of the Jewish community, which tried to engage with this issue, only to find that our efforts were treated as an unwelcome distraction.

    This outcome is extremely serious and damaging, as we and others have explained repeatedly over recent weeks. Israel is at the root of the identity of Jews and of Judaism, and as an expression of Jewish spiritual, national and emotional aspirations, Zionism cannot simply be ruled as illegitimate in the way that the Methodist Conference has purported to do. This smacks of breathtaking insensitivity, as crass as it is misinformed. That this position should now form the basis of Methodist Church policy should cause the Conference to hang its head in shame, just as surely as it will cause the enemies of peace and reconciliation to cheer from the sidelines.

    Jonathan Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jonathan: So far, I see no court case being brought. Like you, I do hope that the courts will decide although it's an expensive venture for everyone.

    cannot simply be ruled as illegitimate in the way that the Methodist Conference has purported to do.

    "Purported"??? The document is public and on the web. Judge for yourself. I personally still remained perplexed as to how the boycott of goods from a small area that is internationally recognized as disputed counts as "ruling Israel as illegitimate". I also remain perplexed as to how a document that begins by affirming the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security can be seen as "ruling Israel illegitimate".

    I presume that you believe that all the other organisations who have joined the boycott are also "ruling Israel illegitimate" and should be sued?

    ReplyDelete
  7. And it's as well to bear in mind that the Board of Deputies does not cry "wolf" often.
    As for it not being antisemitic "to be offended by the wall", Angie, I would remind you that that wall has virtually stopped suicide bombers and other terrorists passing into Israel. Moreover, it's not the only "wall" of its nature in this old world of ours. It just happens to be the one that antisemites and anti-Zionists harp on about to the exclusion of all others. Israel has both a right and a duty to secure its borders and defend its people from threat.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Angela, I beg your pardon for calling you Angie.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The writer of this article, is truly mistaken and ill informed.
    To be anti-Israel today is simply the 21st Century way of being anti-semitic.
    In these modern times it is not seen to be PC to “moan about Jews having too much money or big noses”, so, what do the anti-semites do? they join the BDS band wagon and “have a go” at de- legitimising The State Of Israel.
    Make no mistake, critiscism of Israel IS anti-semitic, as Methodists you should be familiar with the Bible and the Liturgy, throughout, there numerous references to the “return to Zion”, “Israel as the homeland of the Jews”, “Jerusalem the holy city” etc etc.
    To “pretend” that one can be “anti-Israel” whilst at the same time not being anti-semitic, is at best naive at worst deliberately misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If people like Angie Shier-Jones want to support a “cause” might I suggest one of the following:-
    China
    Burma
    Iran
    Somalia
    Ethiopia
    Rwanda
    Democratic Republic of The Congo
    Or is it because there are no Jews in those places means that the likes of Angie are not interested - dear oh dear, it cannot be anti-semitism again, can it?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I presume that you believe that all the other organisations who have joined the boycott are also "ruling Israel illegitimate" and should be sued?"

    All charities (which the Methodists are) who contravene the regulations which govern charities should be sued, yes. Here is what I have tried to do against War on Want:

    http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/uk-charity-commission-decision-war-on-want

    Here is the Board's critique of the paper that the Methodists approved:

    http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/the-board-deputies-critique-methodists-report-justice-palestine-and-israel


    Jonathan Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pam BG you say:

    This whole debate is another good reason for properly understanding Christian theology.

    I agree entirely.

    You also say:

    Replacement theology is "Christians are God's chosen people and the Jews are not".

    Christian theology - and I do understand that non-Christians may not or will not agree with the theology - is "The covenant that God made with Abraham was intended for all people, including most especially the Jews".


    Here is what Rev Nichola Jones said (emphasis mine):

    "In the Bible we learn of the Chosen People. Who are they and what were they chosen for? Genesis tells us again & again that God chooses Abraham and makes a covenant with Abraham & his heirs: a covenant being a two-sided agreement with obligations on both parties, like marriage……Of course, Israel today is not the same as Israel in the Bible: in the Bible, Israel refers to the people of Abraham’s descendants, who are in covenant with God. Israel today is a modern, secular state, created in 1948…….

    For years I cherished the Galatian text…now I read it properly: ‘In Christ there is no longer male or female, slave or free, Jew or Greek (we could say Jew or Arab): we are all one in Christ.’ We are heirs of Abraham, and so inheritors of the promise of Abraham. Jesus, who makes with us a new covenant which transforms us utterly, never speaks of the land or owning it: he speaks of the Kingdom & joining it and invites us to do so. He teaches us God is not a racist God with favourites, but God loves all his children & blesses them"


    Jones apparently argues that:
    1) Israel formerly belonged to the Old Covenant
    2) Israel broke the terms of this covenant
    3) Israel are no longer God's chosen people
    4) Jesus created the New Covenant which goes beyond land or ethnic group.
    5)Therefore, anyone who still believes Israel are God's chosen people is following a racist God.
    6) God's covenantal love is expressed only through Jesus, and not through a territory such as a modern state calling itself Israel.
    7) The modern state of Israel is thus distracting and distorting God, and is an affront to the gospel of Jesus.

    Do you interpret Rev Jones' words differently?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Angela, with the utmost respect, the vast majority of "criticism" of Israel comes from the Middle East, the Arab press, pro-Palestinian websites, journals, Islamist publications, etc. Pretty much all of that is of a nature so distressing, so anti-Semitic that it has been described by contemporary historians as comparable to the worst excesses of Nazi-era propaganda. This is not rhetoric or bizarre wishful thinking (unlike charges of "apartheid"), that is the situation that exists.

    It really is horrific, and should be utterly condemned by all right minded people and especially Christians. Surely you must see why people are anxious and cross about this resolution and why it is generating so much ill feeling towards the Methodists?

    The people in the Arab world that encourage boycotts against Israel do not want peace and reconciliation Angela, they want Israel gone and the Jewish presence removed from the region, something they have been trying to achieve for the last 62 years. And I'm not referring to the Palestinian people but the hugely powerful and wealthy political forces in the Arab world.

    Given the situation that Israelis find themselves in, and the unimaginable amount of hatred and ill will directed towards Jews in the Middle East, do you seriously wonder why this resolution has attracted charges of anti-Semitism?

    If you want to help, combat the hatred with love and understanding for both sides. Encourage community cohesion and reducing sectarian tensions.

    Don't pick sides. It's nasty and vindictive.

    ~Matt Pryor

    ReplyDelete
  14. [quote]
    In a nutshell the argument is - Gentiles committed the holocaust
    [unquote]

    Well, it wasn't Jews, Budhists, Muslims - or Martians. So who else could it be?

    Anyway, the charge was that Christianity pathed the way for the Holocaust, not committed it. The charges of Vatican silence during the Holocaust have never been refuted.

    And had the Catholic Church's Spanish Inquisition known of 6,000,000 Spanish Jews who refused to abandon their faith, there is no question that there would have been an identical Holocaust then.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As some of the comments here have simply been cloned from yesterday's fiasco at Connexions, I am sorry, Angela, that you are probably in for another bad night. But ...

    Do you know Have a Little Faith by Mitch Albom? In it, the author quotes from a sermon by an American rabbi, about a man who "sleeps in a storm":

    "My friends, if we tend to things that are important in life, if we are right with those we love and behave in line with our faith, our lives will not be cursed with the aching throb of unfulfilled business. Our words will always be sincere, our embraces will be tight. We will never wallow in the agony of 'I could have, I should have.' We can sleep in a storm."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Angie once again thank you for the clarity, balance and sheer grace of your contribution.
    I suspect, like me, you have lobbied, protested and taken action in relation to many of the places mentioned in a previous comment.
    Keep up the Prophetic word.
    Sleep well!
    Shalom

    Peter Barber

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kim, Angie, Peter, anyone, genuine question - whom may I contact to request this report?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Joseph W
    Report on Methodist Church web at:
    http://www.methodistconference.org.uk/assets/downloads/confrep-14-justice-for-palestine-israel-170510.pdf
    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you Peter.

    Is it worth me contacting Steve Hucklesby, the policy adviser? Would it be appropriate?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Joseph

    You can contact who you like. "Deference" only exists in the dictionary (fortunately).

    Jonathan Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
  21. Do you interpret Rev Jones' words differently?

    Yes. Replacement theology never was Methodist nor part of our tradition. My automatic assumption, unless proven otherwise, is that the Rev. Jones is speaking out of our traidition and out of what I'd call mainstream Christian teaching. What I will acknowledge, is that I suspect she spoke thinking that her audience would hear her words in the context of mainstream Methodist and Christian teaching and they did not.

    Jones apparently argues that:
    1) Israel formerly belonged to the Old Covenant
    2) Israel broke the terms of this covenant
    3) Israel are no longer God's chosen people
    4) Jesus created the New Covenant which goes beyond land or ethnic group.


    Israel belonged and belongs to the "old covenant" - the Abrahamic one. The "new covenant" for Christians is primarily expounded in Paul that God originally intended the Abrahamic covenant for all peoples. (The Galatians quote) The New Covenant adds the gentiles but does not subtact the Jews. In Christian theology, both Jews and Gentiles broke and break the covenant, that's why we need God's redemption rather than our own. "Covenant" in Christian theology, has nothing to do with acquiring land in the Middle East.

    5)Therefore, anyone who still believes Israel are God's chosen people is following a racist God.

    I interpet "God is not a racist God with favourites" to mean something more like "Anyone who thinks that God is automatically against a people is following a racist God". So anyone who thinks that God hates Jews is following a racist God.

    But yes, anyone who thinks that God hates Palestinians is following a racist God.

    God does not choose "for" one people and "against" another. God asks us to reconcile one with another.

    6) God's covenantal love is expressed only through Jesus, and not through a territory such as a modern state calling itself Israel.

    Yes, that's Christian theology.

    7) The modern state of Israel is thus distracting and distorting God, and is an affront to the gospel of Jesus.

    I have no idea how you get this. My interpretation is more like "The modern State of Israel is a modern State like any other and subject to the same international law as any other State. It is not a State that has a special protection from God. It is not a State with divine protection.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So why mention all of this when discussing the modern state of Israel? Why should secular Jews be punished for a disagreement in Christian theology?

    ReplyDelete
  23. PamBG

    Which laws is it that Israel has broken, then?

    Please provide links to validate your assertions

    Jonathan Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
  24. So why mention all of this when discussing the modern state of Israel? Why should secular Jews be punished for a disagreement in Christian theology?

    I don't even understand this question. I don't understand your comment on "a disagreement in Christian theology".

    Are you saying that to boycott goods from one particular area in Israel is punishing all secular Jews everywhere? So, for instance, if a Palestinian refuses to work in the disputed territories that he is "punishing secular Jews"?

    This is what I don't understand. How do we get from "Don't buy goods from one particular area in Israel" to "Punishing secular Jews"?

    Which laws is it that Israel has broken, then?Please provide links to validate your assertions

    Jonathan, I know how this one ends up. I'll go "yes it is" and you'll go "no it isn't". The disputed areas of Gaza have very recently been a focus of international attention and negotiation; even to the point of concerning Israel's old, heretofore uncritical ally, the US. We undoubtedly disagree on this matter. And we also disagree on whether or not the unwillingness to say "Yes" to everything that Israel does is antisemetic.

    I'm getting to the "Whatever" stage after months of discussion on this issue. "Whatever". Be convinced that this is all about antisemetic hatred. Whatever. I work with dying people. I honestly don't have time to hate. If you have to be convinced that we are the Boogyman, so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joseph
    Thank you for your comments, and for the polite way in which they were put. A part of the issue I suspect is an ignorance of how Methodists do their business. No one member of a committee has any more standing than any other when it comes to our reports and Nichola Jones is just one Methodist amongst thousands in the UK. We are not a 'dogmatic' people who write their theology in stone. We write reports at the request of our own people or in response to the needs of the world. We ask our people to read them and reflect on them and then, if necessary revisit them. We believe in a living Word which needs to be spoken to each generation - but we give no one individual the power to speak it for us - save Christ alone.

    To see what Methodist theology currently is with regard to Israel and the Holy land please read section 2.2 of the report Called to Love and Praise.(available on the Methodist Web Site) This should also answer the discussion with Pam.

    I dont understand what is meant by wanting the report to be 'balanced'- we dont see people in terms of 'opposites that need balancing out. This is not a report about Jews vs Palestinians. We do, however, see injustice in terms of something needing to be addressed and suffering as something that needs to be stopped if at all possible - regardless of race.

    Matt and others - In terms of boycotts and other causes - I currently boycott several companies because of their unethical practices, I have boycotted goods from South Africa when it practiced apartheid - as have most Methodists I suspect.

    As the former chair of the British committee of the World Methodist Council I have played my part in bringing to attention and promoting action against suffering world wide - Methodism is a world wide Church and works with its partner churches to act globally. The British Methodist Church does not have to have a separate report for every cause as it works with its partner churches to try and do as much as it can to respond to international issues.

    Matt - it is only 'picking sides' if you think that only one side will benefit from the action. What is happening in the disputed territories is damaging all the people there - morally, if not economically.

    Daphne - Happy to be Angie!
    Yes.. humans have always argued that such walls are necessary and have done what they intended whether in China, in Poland, in Berlin...
    In practice history tells us they do more harm than good - always.

    Jonathan H
    Your anger and passion are evident, they leave me breathless and despairing - what we couldn't achieve for Jewish Christian relationships if only they were used as a positive rather than a negative force for antisemitism.

    I am grateful for all the comments made - I ask only that you will be please be civil and reasonable as well as passionate and concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Angela, yes I do think this is a strength of Methodist theology, that you are able to engage with a variety of trends in society and adapt your theology to best suit the needs of a changing world. I understand you wrote a book on the subject? I need to get round to reading it still.

    As such I take your point about Rev Jones and understand that she is one voice amongst many. Many Methodists have told me the same about Stephen Leah. But they wrote the report in the end. I think this issue is worth revisiting.

    No-one is denying that there are plenty of reasons why Palestinian people suffer, that when Israel is at fault it is perfectly okay to criticise her, and that Methodists should be helping people around the world wherever possible.

    But I think there are many issues that the Methodist Church have not considered in this instance, which is why I think a report about anti-Semitism would be a fantastic idea. Clearly relations between Jews and Methodists are in need of healing, and a reconsideration of some of the current divides and reasons for that would be a splendid idea.

    Stephen Leah oversaw the working group. I think many Jews are particularly upset that one of Stephen Leah's anti-Zionist colleagues, Terry Gallogly, tried to frame a member of the Board of Deputies and rig a poll to make Jewish Chronicle readers look racist and extreme.

    As Jonathan H is the member in question, his frustration with the current state of affairs is more than understandable, and I am pretty sure he deserves a formal apology or at least further explanation from somewhere in the Church about the involvement of Gallogly and Leah in pushing this report through.

    I do not think Methodist Christians should tolerate deception, and I think it is a crystal clear warning sign that the working paper on Israel should be revisited. I aim to do my best to request this, though I understand how problematic and difficult it may be to get this organised.

    Joseph

    ReplyDelete
  27. Joseph,
    I am unaware of the actions of Stephen Leah or Terry Gallogly, but I can assure you that no matter how powerful or influential you think Stephen to be, our systems prevent anyone from 'pushing a report through'.
    Before a report of this nature can be presented to Conference it has to have passed through several large bodies - our committees don't act on their own. Those bodies do not take 'representation' - they read and revise the documents according to their own collective responsibility and perspective. The authorship names on the report are, in that sense, misleading. They are those charged with providing the primary content - but they have no authority or power over how it is presented to Conference or how it will be received.

    Thank you for your information regarding Jonathan - as I have already commented - his passion is evident - we need such passion - but it needs to be positively directed somehow - we are NOT all Jew haters or antisemites - but it does sound sometimes as though Jonathan would rather we were. This becomes so wearying after a while that many just turn away from the whole debate in disgust and despair rather than engage. If there is antisemitism then it needs to be rooted out and made public - but who will be willing to do this if all that is received in return are still more accusations and taunts? Grace AND passion are needed - together.

    There are, as I see it, two ways of taking this forward.
    The Church has called for dialogue. That recommendation in the report is as important as the other recommendations are.

    So why aren't we having conversations about the content of the report? So much of what I have read has been about the authors or the methodology, or the lack of Jewish involvement etc.

    We need to engage with the actual content.
    In my humble opinion, after trying to take congregations through Conference reports in the past - regardless of the subject - it is pointless wasting energy talking about the authors or the methodology as these are not something that the vast majority of the readers of the report will have the slightest interest in. If pushed or motivated to do so, members will read the report (but would prefer to read a summary!) But in the end - they will want to know what - in the content- is disputed and why.

    If our real interest is in ensuring that sections which are not factually correct or misrepresented and which could therefore lead to antisemitism are addressed, then we need to talk content.

    It might be possible to ask Methodist and Jewish members of the CCJ to work together to provide a study document of some sort which will help those who are interested to explore why certain passages are disputed and why certain recommendations should be resisted or challenged.

    The second way forward is to try and put a District or Circuit memorial to Conference requesting that a report on antisemitism be produced and made available at the same time as the intended report on Zionism. We can also request this via the Secretary of the Faith and Order committee. Reasonable requests are, in my direct experience, and in spite of David Hallam's slanderous rhetoric - always welcomed and taken on board. I will do what I can through our channels to further this.

    ReplyDelete
  28. If our real interest is in ensuring that sections which are not factually correct or misrepresented and which could therefore lead to antisemitism are addressed, then we need to talk content.

    Yes, this would be splendid, I would very much like to pursue this channel if possible. It is refreshing to hear your openness and eagerness for further exploration of this issue.

    Regarding David Hallam, I think it is worth at least taking on-board his grievances and perhaps seeking a way to reconcile him with those he has fallen out with, rather than allowing the dispute to spiral further, or simply saying it is somehow all his fault.

    I think if we can all discuss these things in a mature and Christian spirit then perhaps we can move beyond the current impasse.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Joseph,

    "Regarding David Hallam, I think it is worth at least taking on-board his grievances and perhaps seeking a way to reconcile him with those he has fallen out with, rather than allowing the dispute to spiral further, or simply saying it is somehow all his fault."

    If you or anyone else is able to facilitate this I would welcome it. Please don't imagine that people have not tried.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Daphne,

    You wrote:

    "As for it not being antisemitic "to be offended by the wall", Angie, I would remind you that that wall has virtually stopped suicide bombers and other terrorists passing into Israel. Moreover, it's not the only "wall" of its nature in this old world of ours. It just happens to be the one that antisemites and anti-Zionists harp on about to the exclusion of all others. Israel has both a right and a duty to secure its borders and defend its people from threat."

    I have a problem that you write about the wall as if it has no negative effect.

    You paint a very simplistic and dualistic view which I reject.

    To be concerned about the people whose lives have been destroyed by the wall does not mean Methodists are anti-Semitic.

    To recognise that walls like this have never been successful in the long term is not anti-Semitic.

    To recognise there have been years of rocket attacks from Gaza (which we believe are wrong and evil) that killed almost 30 people over 8 years (recognising that they were unique and valued people whose lives were tragically cut short and feeling for the families will carry the hurt and pain for the rest of their lives). To recognise that despite the evil of those rocket attacks the response of a war on Gaza that killed around 1400 people including it seems over 300 children (that is 10 times more children killed than total killed in 8 years of rocket attacks) was not a proportionate response.

    When the state of Israel occupied the West Bank and controlled Gaza all the people living there should now be the responsibility of the state of Israel. You say Israel should "defend its people from threat". I ask therefore how you believe the Palestinian people are experiencing this.

    As I say I reject your dualistic thinking. That is incompatible with the theology and practice of the Methodist people. We care deeply about people no matter which "side" they are on.

    I challenge your simplistic view of the wall. Yes the wall has (temporarily IMHO) reduced suicide attacks but at what cost to innocent people and at what cost in creating more hatred, driving more people into the hands of extremists and making peace more difficult. The cost of reducing the suicide attacks is very very high and yet all your dualistic and simplistic thinking can do is call those who challenge it anti-Semitic.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Angela

    I'm not sure I properly understand this passage in your article:

    "It IS antisemitic to not question or challenge any of these things, to hate the Jew so much that we would be prepared to stand by and watch whilst they perhaps commit crimes against You and against humanity which we know from our own bitter experience will only result in long-lasting spiritual, social and political damage."

    Is your argument that the Jew commits crimes against You (God?) and against humanity.

    Is your conclusion that to fail to criticise the conduct of the Jew would itself be a form of antisemitism, because criticism helps to protect the Jew from long-lasting spiritual damage?

    If I have misunderstood the meaning of this phrase, I apologise.

    ReplyDelete
  32. David,
    The argument is that WE have committed such crimes - and are still paying the moral and spiritual cost. So we should challenge if we see that others might make the same mistake.

    So yes, it is my conclusion that to fail to criticise the conduct of the Israeli state would itself be a form of antisemitism, because such criticism might help to protect the Jew from long-lasting spiritual and moral damage.
    If you have discovered what you thought was a nutritious fruit was in fact a deadly poison - would you really choose to stand by and let people you care for, eat it?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Angela

    Thank you very much for your reply.

    "The argument is that WE have committed such crimes - and are still paying the moral and spiritual cost"

    But you said:

    "they perhaps commit crimes against You and against humanity"

    Who is the "they", and what are their crimes?

    What are the crimes that "we" have committed?

    "If you have discovered what you thought was a nutritious fruit was in fact a deadly poison - would you really choose to stand by and let people you care for, eat it?"

    What is the deadly poison - I'm not sure I understand.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Again, Angela, many thanks for your continued willingness to dialogue about these sensitive matters.

    If I understand your previous comment correctly, you are saying the Methodist critique of Israel was designed as a safeguarding measure to prevent the Jew from the sins of Zionism?

    Zionism, or Israel, is essentially "forbidden fruit", and you are speaking as the voice of God, warning the Jews off from daring to set up their own nation outside of covenant promises?

    Essentially, the Methodist document was intended to be pro-Jewish because it protects "the Jew", and it is unfathomable than others should interpret it as anti-Jewish. Is this a fair summation of your position on this matter?

    I ask in order to understand and thus further dialogue with yourself and others.

    Many thanks

    Joseph

    ReplyDelete
  35. David
    The crime that WE have committed is the Holocaust, apartheid, racism... the building and defending of walls in Poland, Berlin, the segregation and bloodshed in Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Dear God - the list is endless.

    All of which is a crime against God and humanity.

    Now we watch new walls being built, now we watch new forms of segregation and division...
    It is not that we have the RIGHT to interfere, but that our past experience makes us compelled to speak..

    The poison fruit is what we have eaten - the cost of all the above.. especially in terms of our young people's belief in God and regard for religion. Racism is a cancer in the soul of the West.. regardless of whether it is black/white asian/white or antisemitism.

    Those who have tasted it or watched others die of it would want to stop others mistaking it for something positive or good. ALL racism is a denial of the gospel.

    The Methodist document as I read it was in answer to a specific request concerning Palestinians, it therefore focuses on that. It is not, however, intended to be anti anything, least of all antisemitic. It proclaims the right of Israel to exist and grieves the loss of life that Israel suffers.

    ReplyDelete
  36. PamBG
    Check your facts/story.
    Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.
    Unfortunately this created a vacuum, filled by the Iranian proxy Islamist radical terrorist organisation - Hamas.
    Gaza is not a disputed area - Israel does not want it, that is why they pulled out in 2005,(that is 5 years ago!!), Egypt doesn't want it -no one wants it.
    When Israel was in control there was a thriving industry, eg world-wide exports of flowers.
    Rather than take over and develop the infra-structure, factories and farms, they were all destroyed by Hamas when Israel pulled out.
    The mess that Gaza is in today is no ones fault but that of Hamas.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Can anyone tell me why the Methodist Church has not taken up the cause of freedom in Iran.
    - Are you happy for political dissenters to be raped, tortured and murdered.
    - Are you happy that petty thieves have their arms cut off?
    Surely, if you have a genuine Christian sympathies the tome would be better spent at your Synod calling for Iran to enter the 21st Century and join the community of civilised nations.
    Or am I being naive again, no Jews involved their - so who cares.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Angela

    "The crime that WE have committed is the Holocaust, apartheid, racism... the building and defending of walls in Poland, Berlin, the segregation and bloodshed in Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Dear God - the list is endless."

    You haven't committed any of these crimes at all.

    But what I'd be interested in exploring futher, is the crimes that you think that the Jew has committed:

    "It IS antisemitic to not question or challenge any of these things, to hate the Jew so much that we would be prepared to stand by and watch whilst they perhaps commit crimes against You and against humanity which we know from our own bitter experience will only result in long-lasting spiritual, social and political damage."

    You're not talking here about crimes that "WE" have committed (i.e. Rwanda etc), but rather crimes that "THEY" have committed.

    In that sentence, "they" is "the Jew", surely? The meaning of the sentence is that "the Jew" has committed crimes against "You", who I think must mean Christ.

    What I'm interested to understand is what the crimes against humanity and Christ that the Jew has committed is.

    I appreciate that you don't mean this in a hostile way at all, because you go on to explain that it would be antisemitic not to save the Jew from inflicting spiritual damage on him or herself. So you are motivated by love for the Jew, and not hatred.

    Is that a fair explanation of your views?

    ReplyDelete
  39. David
    'they perhaps commit..'
    the hope is to prevent such crimes by intervention.
    Prevention is always better than a cure.

    What do YOU think of the wall and those who suffer behind it? How much blood is in the mortar? (Jewish AND Palestinian).

    How do we STOP history repeating itself?

    The crime is the same as it has always been - To have not loved God with all our hearts and minds and strength, and to have not loved our neighbour as ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  40. What wall?
    Do you mean the wall Israel has been forced to build to stop Palestinian suicide bombers terrorizing Israeli Civilians.
    Cafes and Bars in Tel Aviv, people out for an evenings enjoyment - blown to smitherines.
    Netanya, elderley hotel residents sitting down to the Seder night meal - blown to smitherines,
    This is what the "wal"l is there for, to stop Palestinian terrorism, nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous -
    what makes you think we haven't taken up the cause of those in Iran? What evidence do you have that the Church has been silent on these issues?

    Please see my earlier post about WORLD Methodism and our work with our world church partners.

    Please read through all our papers (available on the Web) before you make such assumptions.

    We have also produced reports and made comment on the situation in Darfur, Iraq, Sri-lanka,Afghanistan, Zimbabwe etc etc

    PLEASE - We welcome contributions to this important debate but if you want to contribute, try and do so based on fact not on presumption. You will be far more likely to be taken seriously and for your point to be heard.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Check your facts/story.

    Apologies, I'm going on 48 hours without sleep at the moment. (Due to work shift, not insomnia.) And I'm still functioning with lack of sleep, so please forgive if this is incoherent.

    I understand that we differ in our opinions of the situation. I'm not actually of the opinion that the State of Israel is to blame for everything that has happened in the region. I am, however, of the opinion that it is not blameless.

    It continues to seem to me that much of the outrage centres around the view that to see the State of Israel as being anything other than completely blameless is to be antisemitic.

    If you hold the opinion that the State of Israel has never done anything worthy of criticism, then we not agree and I sincerely doubt I can convince you.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Pam, I don't hold this opinion, in fact there is rather a lot to criticise the State of Israel for. I haven't yet come across anyone on these blogs who is arguing that the nation state of Israel is perfect and flawless. Perhaps though, I have missed other conversations where this has happened.

    Can you point to me where, on a Methodist blog, someone has claimed the state of Israel has 'never done anything worthy of criticism'?

    Thankyou

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dave,
    delighted to say that Joseph and I have already taken steps to do as you suggest..

    BUT
    Please don't presume that I am not already aware of the historical and theological problems that lead to the sort of defensive reaction we are witnessing now. I cannot plead ignorance on these matters - although I am also no expert. My students will however confirm that I have taught them to be aware of the antisemitic theology in the writings of (for example) the father of the European Reformation, and the danger of any theology of supersessionism.

    BUT - It is also the case that there have been different Jewish theologies and attitudes, some of which are as 'Fundamental' as the worst Christian fundamentalists!

    I still choose to believe that perfect love does indeed cast out fear as Scripture claims and that to act out of fear is to ensure the failure of faith and hope for the future.

    History and Scripture teach us that walls have never been able to keep what we fear out - but they have usually succeed in building up the fear within. They are destructive and divisive for those either side of them.

    I look forward to the theology.

    ReplyDelete
  45. David

    Ughh what disgusting theology - but yes - I do know some Christians have and some still do think that the Jews must atone for the death of Christ - or that the Christians must love the Jews into salvation.

    The Methodist stance is thankfully very different.

    As mentioned earlier - the only crime against God that I recognise is that which we all share - a breaking of the two commandments that Jesus gave us (one of which is simply the Shema restated)

    Methodists are not supercessionists, and they know that the death of Christ was caused by their own need for salvation.

    Yes we would like for all people to know God - but no, we do not think it is our mission in life to 'save' Jews.. We have great respect for all the world faiths - and trust that God knows what God is doing.
    As I have said before - we do not believe that God condemns a people by the happenstance of where they were born or to whom.

    More critically - at the heart of the New Testament is the narrative of a Jew - who brings us the good news that God is with us, that life is everlasting, that fear is not victorious and that love is the fulfilling of the law. It is not about the 'Jews' it is about all of humanity. For in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, Male nor female, Slave nor freeman.
    BUT
    sadly
    Slavery is still a reality in some Christian countries
    Women are still discriminated against in Christendom
    Jews are still discriminated against worldwide
    in spite of what the gospel proclaims.

    The sad fact is, we haven't managed to communicate the truth past what people want to hear, to the point that people need to hear.

    But we dont stop trying.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hi Angela - David here.

    My last comments aren't visible to me, although you must have seen them. Apologies if I post again, but as Anon ....:

    Angela

    It might be helpful if you and Joseph were to chat, perhaps offline, about why some of the things you have said are so very difficult for Jews.

    Your argument is that "the Jew" is "perhaps" committing crimes against Christ and Humanity. These crimes are also causing "the Jew" "spiritual" "damage". Your reaction is to want to save "the Jew" from that spiritual damage. You conclude, consistently, that to refuse to save the Jew from spiritual damage is a form of antisemitism.

    It might help to explain why this sort of logic, although completely inoffensive and an expression of deep faith for you, contains strong echoes for Jews of theological antisemitism which for much of Christian-Jewish history.

    One reading of the New Testament is that the Jews killed Christ, who was sent to them as the Messiah, and asked God to blame them collectively for his murder (Matthew 27:25). Jews do not believe that they killed Christ. However, it is that accusation which has been at the heart of the persecution of Jews by Christians.

    For that reason, the suggestion that "the Jew" has "injured" Christ will inevitably be incredibly upsetting to Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ah great - it is working. Second part of it. This is essentially the same point that I made in my "vanished" post:

    Similarly, Christians have very often seen one of their most important missions as being to save Jews from damnation. Jews are seen as particularly in need of this salvation, because of their supposed role in the execution of Christ, and because their rejection of the Messiah was a particular offence against God. Christians who have tried to save Jews from damnation are generally motivated by concern for the souls of Jews. However, that is not the way that Jews will naturally see the concern. They will see it as an accusation of deicide, and a precursor to persecution.

    Jews also are familiar with what happens when they, again, reject the offer of salvation. Historically, many Christians have regarded the reluctance of "the Jew" to convert as compounding the offence against Christ.

    I mention this because I really don't think that you can have an idea about this, at all, or you wouldn't have said it.

    Christians will naturally see the world through the Gospels and the Bible as a whole. Christian themes which, in some forms, have been associated with the persecution of Jews will to some degree find its way into the thinking and rhetoric of some Christians, on political matters.

    In the case of Israel/Palestine, this results in a naturally very close focus on the area. Christians will often hear echoes of Biblical themes in current events. Thinking about Jews in theological terms becomes mixed up with the politics of the region. For some, Palestinians become the Crucified Christ, again tormented by "the Jew".

    I don't think that this sort of theological-political thinking is ever helpful, in any context.

    The Israel-Palestine dispute in particular is not helped by its religious symbolism, which has resulted in it becoming, for religious people, a conflict with cosmic significance. What is more helpful, I think, is to do what you can to facilitate and promote those within Israeli and Palestinian society who want to create a peaceful two state settlement. This is something that Israelis and Palestinians can be helped on, but which they need to do alone.

    You can do this by supporting civil society groups like One Voice:

    http://www.onevoicemovement.org/

    ReplyDelete
  48. Can you point to me where, on a Methodist blog, someone has claimed the state of Israel has 'never done anything worthy of criticism'?

    There are many posts over the last few months on both Richard Hall's blog "Connexions" and David Hallam's blog "Methodist Preacher" where this issue is discussed. David variously confirms and denies this concept, but seems to make this link quite clearly it in a recent post "Some Visitors to the Methodist Blogosphere".

    I'll be frank. I think that the recent report could have been a lot more balanced in giving both sides of the situation. I think the Church was naive in assuming that, like so many other reports it has done charging one group or another with behaving wrongly, that there would be no attention from outside the church. Since this is still a work in progress there is an opportunity to give more weight to the Israeli side of the story in this particular document.

    One surprise for me, personally, have been the number of individuals who seem absolutely determined to see anything that is said with the assumption that the speaker hates Jewish people. In knowing myself to be a person of goodwill, I can see that I was naive to assume that anyone else would assume that I was a person of goodwill. It's taught me both to try to be more precise about what I mean. And it's also taught me that no matter how precise one is, someone will need that person to be an object of their hatred but that still cannot silence one from trying to speak the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Angela

    "Ughh what disgusting theology - but yes - I do know some Christians have and some still do think that the Jews must atone for the death of Christ - or that the Christians must love the Jews into salvation."

    Yes, I know you regard this as disgusting.

    However, can you see how your statement will have seemed to most Jews - I've shared it around without mentioning your name - as a strong echo of that theology?

    There is also this statement as well:

    "It would be very interesting to know whether or not he intends to finance the action from his own personal funds only. My suspicion, given the amount of lobbying going on by a few activists, is that he has allowed himself to act as a foil for a fight, rather than a light for a Gospel cause."

    The idea that Jews use non-Jews to fight their battles, and that they are rich and powerful is another one which echoes sentiments which have their roots in Christianity, and which also makes Jews frightened.

    The story of Christ's crucifixion in the New Testament, has Pontius Pilate wanting to free Jesus, but being forced by the Jews to crucify him. Historically, this is unlikely to have been true. Pilate was a very brutal governor, and was recalled to Rome for that reason. Jews were not in a position to dictate to Rome on any subject.

    However, the idea that Jews are able to make non-Jews their "foils" is a very popular one, and again, is associated by Jews with persecution.

    Similarly, the idea that Jews are very rich and throw money at lobbying is also one with a long pedigree. It isn't true, in fact. But it is commonly believed to be true, because it fits in with traditional perspectives on powerful and manipulating Jews.

    Joseph can explain all of this from a Christian perspective better than I can from an atheist/sociological one.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Oh, and very finally, I do not think that any mainstream Christian nowadays consciously mixes these old and dangerous themes with their politics.

    But do you not think that it is possible that some of these themes, which have been part of Christian discourse for so long, might conceivably be reoccuring now, and just not being spotted?

    We all hold lazy stereotypes about others, which we find ourselves slipping into, if we're not careful.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'll be frank. I think that the recent report could have been a lot more balanced in giving both sides of the situation. I think the Church was naive in assuming that, like so many other reports it has done charging one group or another with behaving wrongly, that there would be no attention from outside the church. Since this is still a work in progress there is an opportunity to give more weight to the Israeli side of the story in this particular document.

    Pam BG, that is very gracious for you to say so and is gratefully received. I'm sure there's still room for further discussion and the matter is still open for debate and chances to further learn from each other.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Joseph: Thank you for your "gracious" comment. I actually like being gracious. But I wasn't saying it to curry favour but because it's what I believe. I'm even happy to entertain criticisms of "Hey, that argument or point could be seen as antisemetic even though you don't mean it to be."

    Unfortunately, there seem to be a number of dialogue partners who feel a great need to prove that The Methodist Church and many Methodist ministers are motivated by hatred in their heart. That's pushed the conversation into trying to explain the position rather than working with the content.

    It seems that dialogue can take place when we focus on the content and assume a modicum of goodwill as you are doing now. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thank you David,
    some very helpful comments.

    I can see how my comment might have been misread - but only if taken out of context and read with an antisemitic bias presumed.

    I think the mistake I keep making is assuming that Jews dont think of us as Gentiles - by which I mean it would never occur to me to divide humanity in the way that you keep insisting on. Passion speaks to passion and I have often spoken up for those whose cause I support when I am the person best placed to do so. This is good and right and proper and I would see nothing wrong in David or anyone else acting on behalf of a cause he felt it was right to champion.
    My question about funding was a comment about how much support he is (not) attracting - a warning comment that this might prove to be very expensive. (Believe it or not, the old myth about wealthy Jews is barely known to this generation!)
    More importantly, the foil that I am speaking of is David's ego. In my opinion if it were not for the sensationalism I doubt David would be involved at all. There is no evidence that this is about justice or about tackling antisemitism - if it were, David - as a recognised representative of our Church - would not be bringing the Church into such disrepute, he would be raising the matter at his circuit meeting, or at his District Synod - but this would not be worthy of a press report.

    Nonetheless, I do believe that good dialogue on the CONTENT of the report (not on the content of blogs or the debate at Conference, or the known affiliations of certain Methodists etc etc) might actually lead to a better understanding and a way forward.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The Report that the Methodists adopted is supercessionist and lies about Israel:

    http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/the-board-deputies-critique-methodists-report-justice-palestine-and-israel

    David Hallam is doing the right thing and will be supported by all righthinking people, most especially me.

    See you in Court.

    Jonathan Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
  55. Angela

    "I think the mistake I keep making is assuming that Jews dont think of us as Gentiles - by which I mean it would never occur to me to divide humanity in the way that you keep insisting on. "

    Thank you for your reply.

    It is a comparatively modern development within Christianity, that I am glad that you are part of, that plays down the religion's focus on Jews as villains and plays up Jesus's Jewishness.

    The re-reading of the New Testament has been one of Christianity's great post-Holocaust achievements. However, I wonder whether you have considered the extent to which the New Testament's portrayal of Jews as the murderers of God, and the general vilification of Jews in the New Testament, formed the theoretical basis, and the cultural backdrop, for the historic persecution of Jews from the time of Constantine onwards?

    It has been very helpful that, generally speaking, the formal charge in Matthew 27:25 that Jews as a whole are Deicides in not pursued or emphased in Christian teaching in the last 40 years or so. However, that has not been the position of Christians on Jews for the first 1,900 years.

    You say:

    "by which I mean it would never occur to me to divide humanity in the way that you keep insisting on"

    Jews do think of their religion as distinct, and don't believe that it is a universal religion. They think that it is the right religion for Jews, while believing that God wants others to follow their own paths to the divine.

    Christianity, by contrast, presents itself as a religion for everybody, including Jews. I think that Christianity still does have a problem, on the theoretical level, with the position of Jews who do not accept Christ's messianic and divine nature.

    Do you make no distinction between a Jew who accepts Christ and a Jew who rejects Christ? For example, in your theology, will a Jew who rejects Christ go to Heaven? Some Christians, with very deep love and concern for Jews, would say 'no'. Others may say "yes, but through the grace of Christ": despite his rejection of Him.

    But if your position is that God does not want Jews to accept Christ, and that there is no distinction to be made between Jews and Christians, because both are equally saved, and both will go to Heaven, then I think you could truly say that you make no distinction between Christians and Jews.

    By contrast, if what you're saying is that God loves all people equally, including Jews, and wants them to become Christians, then don't you make a distinction between Jews who are Christians, and Jews who are not?

    ReplyDelete
  56. As a footnote: Jews do not generally divide the world into "us" and "Gentiles". I think you'll find that perspective in closed Haredi communities, which completely keep themselves to themselves. But they're the minority position.

    However, the word "Gentiles" and the contrast between 'the Jew" and "the Gentile" is a major theme of the New Testament. It comes out of St Paul's argument with James as to the proper scope of his own mission.

    Jews also generally don't use the term "the Jew" to refer to themselves collectively.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Thank you David - again helpful remarks.
    The Methodist perspective on the Covenant people can be found in our report called to love and praise - I quote
    'any attempt to define the relationship of the Jewish people to the Church is a difficult, sensitive matter. Perhaps the very attempt is presumptuous. The Biblical witness to God’s faithfulness to his people must not be ignored, and the Jews continue to be a dynamic, flourishing community, seeking to express their faithfulness to the Torah. But Jesus’ own prophetic ministry to Israel cannot be set aside either. The new thing of which the New Testament speaks is not described as for Gentiles only. Rather, a new community has been established on non-racial lines, for in Christ ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek’ (Galatians 3.28).'

    So.. no, we are definitely not supercessionist

    To help clarify matters - called to love and praise has the standing within our church of a doctrinal statement - thus the Church believes - the report Israel/Palestine has no such standing within our Church. It has merely been received by our Church as a call to reflect and act. It is not a statement of our beliefs which is why it is desirable to dialogue and debate on the issues and why David Hallam's threats are so empty.
    David should know that only STATEMENTS adopted by Conference are definitive of Methodist beliefs.(not reports that are received)

    Does this help?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Angela

    You said:

    ""It would be very interesting to know whether or not he intends to finance the action from his own personal funds only. My suspicion, given the amount of lobbying going on by a few activists, is that he has allowed himself to act as a foil for a fight, rather than a light for a Gospel cause."

    I suggested that these words might be read as suggesting that Hallam is being funded and being used as a "foil" by a 'few activists' who are involved in a great degree of "lobbying". Moreover, in doing so, David Hallam is behaving in a non- or anti-Christian manner.

    You answer:

    "My question about funding was a comment about how much support he is (not) attracting - a warning comment that this might prove to be very expensive. (Believe it or not, the old myth about wealthy Jews is barely known to this generation!)"

    I'm interested to hear that your generation doesn't think of Jews as wealthy. I'm not sure that is actually the case. It really is a very widespread stereotype, which is routinely used to discredit Jews. I'm very surprised that you haven't heard it before.

    Are you really sure about this?

    I also read your statement about Hallam being a "foil" as a suggestion that he was being used as a sword - a 'foil' - by others. However, you have explained that that isn't what you meant at all:

    "More importantly, the foil that I am speaking of is David's ego. In my opinion if it were not for the sensationalism I doubt David would be involved at all. "

    I'm not sure that this really is what your words meant. A foil is a weapon. A fencer uses a foil. So who is using David Hallam as a foil? How does a an "ego" result in a person becoming a "foil".

    You also said:

    "It would be very interesting to know whether or not he intends to finance the action from his own personal funds only."

    Weren't you suggesting that it would be 'interesting' to find out if Hallam had access to any funds other than his own? Surely that's the plain meaning of your words?

    Aren't you also suggesting that the source of funds might be the other activists who are lobbying around this issue:

    "given the amount of lobbying going on by a few activists"

    I haven't been following this issue closely - who are the activists who are engaged in lobbying around this issue?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Jonathan H,
    I have read the Board of Deputies critique - and am already in dialogue with other members of the Jewish community to engage with it - Not surprisingly the critique is not universally agreed with by the Jewish community. (just as the report is not universally agreed with in the Methodist community) There seem to be many who have a different take on the whole matter.

    So given that there are clear differences of opinion - in both communities - is there no way that we can take the dialogue further and talk about the issues based on the content of the report and your own opinion, rather than simply repeat other people's rhetoric?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Thank you Angela:

    " But Jesus’ own prophetic ministry to Israel cannot be set aside either. The new thing of which the New Testament speaks is not described as for Gentiles only. Rather, a new community has been established on non-racial lines, for in Christ ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek’ (Galatians 3.28).'"

    So, do Methodists believe that Jews should convert to Christianity? Will Jews who do not so convert go to Heaven?

    I think, from your statement, that your position is that God has created a new community of which Jews who become Christians are a part.

    So, when you say that you do not make a distinction between Jew and Gentile, what you mean is that you make a distinction between Jews and Gentiles who are Christians, and Jews who are not Christians.

    But most Jews who continue to identify as Jews are not Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  61. David,
    yes, as I said - it would be interesting to see if David had access to other funds - but that does not imply 'Jewish' funds. The stereotypes are yours not mine.

    I believe there are very few in our Church who would support such action as he threatens - but there are some.

    With regard to limited activists - If you read the blogosphere on this matter you will find very few names engaged in the debate, some are Methodist, some are not. Some have been very vitriolic, others more conciliatory.

    But again - the divisions you seek to find in my comments are yours not mine. I simply do not see David's action as a Jewish vs Christian (or Methodist) issue - how can I when he speaks so movingly of other Methodists who support him?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thanks, Angela.

    I'll follow this issue more closely, and see how it develops. I also don't think it helps to be vitriolic. These issues benefit from patient explanation, not shouting.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Do you believe that Jews who continue to follow Judaism, and do not convert to Christianity will go to Heaven?

    ReplyDelete
  64. David
    I'm not sure what 'heaven' is and I have no idea who will or wont get to it if it exists.

    Scripture makes it clear that the Kingdom is both now and not yet - so I must assume that all those who are in a devout relationship with God are sharing in the kingdom.

    So,no..I personally dont feel the need to convert a devout Jew to Christianity. A new community means exactly that -it doesn't mean a 'Christian' community but a community which Christians do hope to be a part of.

    I have to be honest and say that not all Methodist would agree with me!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Thanks!

    What a very fine approach

    ReplyDelete
  66. "is there no way that we can take the dialogue further?"

    No. I cannot have dialogue with a Methodist who does not want to reverse the Conference's decision. You do not seem to realise the gravity of that decision. It is like asking the victims of the London bombing of July 2005 to have dialogue with the bombers.

    Dilaogue is not possible.

    Good luck to David Hallam. As for his 'funds', I for one will be happy and proud to help fund his case. I assure you I am by no means alone.

    As for the Board of Deputies' critique not being 'universally agreed' among Jews: a handful of Jews do not agree with it: whether they are halachically genuine Jews (that is, with a Jewish matriarchal line), who knows. But the vast majority of halachically genuine Jews do agree with it, since the Board of Deputies is democratically elected and no-one voiced opposition (I am a Deputy so I know).

    Jonathan Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
  67. So,no..I personally dont feel the need to convert a devout Jew to Christianity. A new community means exactly that -it doesn't mean a 'Christian' community but a community which Christians do hope to be a part of.

    I have to be honest and say that not all Methodist would agree with me!


    I would agree with you.

    The thing that I personally find strange is that many theologically conservative Christians who take the "Israel right or wrong" line would most certainly say that Jews cannot go to "heaven". They want an Israeli State, as it were, for their own ends: the second coming of Jesus who they believe will then rule eternally against all non-Christians for the sake of "justice".

    That, to me, doesn't seem to stem from a genuine love of the Jewish people.

    I think it's sad, also, that dialogue can't be had with anyone who didn't agree with one in the first place. But it shows a certain mindset that certainly speaks of "He who does not want to kill my enemy wants to kill me".

    ReplyDelete
  68. The thing that I personally find strange is that many theologically conservative Christians who take the "Israel right or wrong" line would most certainly say that Jews cannot go to "heaven". They want an Israeli State, as it were, for their own ends: the second coming of Jesus who they believe will then rule eternally against all non-Christians for the sake of "justice".

    Well, as you know, love of Jews is often fascination with Jews which is often hatred of Jews.

    There are certainly some Dispensationist supporters of Israel who do hold that the Jews must return to Israel in order to bring on End Times, and so on, but there's also a tendency to overplay their importance.

    Most Christians who I know who are supportive of Israel, do so because they would not like to see the six million Jews who live there dispersed and murdered. Some build their theology around that. For others, the theology is independent - they may still wish to see Jews convert, or they may see God's covenant with them as extent.

    Some Muslims I know also are supportive of Israel, for a whole variety of philosophical reasons. Some see evidence in the Quran of an abiding covenant underpinned by an implicit right of self-rule. Others are supporters of secular states, generally - for example, I was chatting last night with a very good friend who was once a senior member of the jihadist group, Hizb ut Tahrir, whose view is that Muslim life can only be lived in in its proper form in a secular state, which respects fundamental human rights.

    Apologies for the digression... but one of the interesting developments of the last few years has been the pretty radical thinking of a bunch of ex-Hizb ut Tahrir officers, who have all become supporters of democracy and secularism (and also of Israel and Palestine as two self-defining states). Hizb ut Tahrir is a terrible organisation in many ways, but it is also effectively a university which trains inquisitive minds. A lot of those minds end up thinking their way out of Hizb ut Tahrir. They're the guys you should be watching.

    ReplyDelete
  69. ' However, that has not been the position of Christians on Jews for the first 1,900 years. '

    Exactly, David. What Angela chooses to define as her personal Christianity, now, today, in the late 20th early 21st century, is not necessarily relevant. Her choice is not retrospective in effect.

    For most of Christian history, in most parts of Christendom whence Israeli Jews originated, Jews have been defined as a people dispossessed, by God, as a punishment for their rejection of Jesus and the prophets.

    Which had consequences, even the in the 19th and 20th centuries, when Jews were still defined as most nationally Jewish than European (or Arab, actually), with the result that most were either killed or effectively driven out. Before 1914 mostly to America, after mostly to Palestine, or what became Israel.

    The basis of Jewish nationalism, of Zionism, which is why any kind of Israel exists, is that, historically, in some sense, Jews have been regarded as an ethno-national group, by themselves and others, exiled and dispossessed.

    In other words, possessed of a desire for restoration and return analogous to that of Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians.

    That is precisely what is lacking from the report, which actually seeks to undermine any such equivalence from the beginning i.e. it is a work of pro-Palestinian Arab Christian (and, by extension, Muslim, but anti-Jewish, nationalism.

    Angela twisted the above saying into 'pro-Palestinian = antisemitism'.

    Which rather suggests the lady cannot contain two ideas in her head at the same time i.e. that Jewish national claims are in some sense equivalent to Palestinian Arab Christian and Muslims ones. That both peoples have a right of restoration, return and self-determination.

    Perhaps, one day, in a single state. But only when both have learned that equivalence, and to frame their narrative, in terms of that of the other.

    Until then, two states, for two peoples, with two respective rights of return, division broadly on the 67 lines, or with territorial reciprocation; division of Jerusalem, old and new.

    Stephen Leah doesn't like that formula, because, as a PSC activist, he seeks the end of Zionism, the end of a Jewish state.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Conchovar,


    Agreed that Christians in the past have held some very extreme views/theologies and have acted on them to the extent that they have murdered and raped MANY countries and peoples including Jews and Israel.
    The Hebrew Scriptures point the same finger of accusation at Israel itself in terms of how it acquired 'David's city' and the surrounding land..
    How far back do we go to not be 'relevant'?

    I have not twisted any claim - the charge of antisemitism has been made against me and other members of the Church I belong to - something I hotly dispute. But I am learning, from these conversations that there are many and different definitions of antisemitism, from the extreme presumption that anyone who criticises Israel in any way must be antisemitic to the more rational, those who hate Jews and who want to see the destruction of Israel are antisemitic.

    I am also learning WHY some people think the report unbalanced instead of just THAT they think it is - so am better able to understand, reflect and act. I have to say that you have produced the most cogent arguments in terms of needing to know and appreciate Palestinian attitudes prior to the creation of the State of Israel, for which - thank you.

    I know nothing of Stephen Leah and have no intention of getting into a debate about what one person does or does not intend - I know my Church well and as I have said earlier - One man does not a report make!

    The report does not seek the end of Israel, it repeatedly affirms the right of Israel to exist and to exist in peace.

    I resist the division of humanity on the grounds of historical race or ethnicity. I am not responsible for the action of every Christian in the past - I am responsible for my own faith and my own actions. Whether you believe it to be relevant or not - I stand by what I said earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  71. 'I resist the division of humanity on the grounds of historical race or ethnicity.'

    But that very resistance Palestinian Christians and Muslims resisted with regard to Jews for most of Christian and Islamic history. I do not hold you responsible for their actions. But if they are ignored, or whitewashed, I will observe the fact. And if you call it their merely 'objecting to the formation of Israel', rather than their seeking, at the very least, to stop all Jews migrating into the land, seeking refuge, even from genocide, a policy rooted in an historical imperial Christian and Islamic nexus that sought to keep Jews to a tiny minority, and the Jews generally to a dispersed group made aware of their state as a punishment for their rejection of Jesus and the prophets, I will say so.

    Likewise, if the report in mealy mouthed fashion merely acknowledges the right of Israel to exist as a fait accomplis, merely for the spuriously adduced reason of 'the holocaust', as though the justification for Zionism and a Jewish yearning for return and restoration begins in 1939 and ends in 1945; while assiduously working to undermine any moral legitimacy it may have had in the first place, not least by stressing Zionism's youth and Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian antiquity; solidly in line with Stephen Leah's political agenda, I may say so, too.



    Likewise, I fully accept your right to say that none of this is or was objectively true Christianity. It does not have to have been objective true Christianity for it to have taken place, and for its existence, or its absence in certain purported histories, to be noted or observed.

    ReplyDelete
  72. conchovor
    define 'mealy mouthed fashion'
    where do you find any hint in the report of 'fait acomplis'
    The report goes back to the time of Abraham - not the holocaust

    where does moral legitimacy come from?

    I have no idea what Stephen Leah thinks - and so cannot comment except to say he does not speak for the whole Church any more than you speak for all of Judaism - so your comment there is irrelevant.

    Agreed that 'It does not have to have been objective true Christianity for it to have taken place, and for its existence, or its absence in certain purported histories, to be noted or observed.' `but it does make pointing the finger hard to do and bearing responsibility even harder.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "There are many and different definitions of antisemitism, from the extreme presumption that anyone who criticises Israel in any way must be antisemitic to the more rational, those who hate Jews and who want to see the destruction of Israel are antisemitic."

    I repeat: the assertion that there are those who say that "any criticism of Israel is antisemitic" is a myth put round by people who want to remove from Jews the right to make genuine accusations of antisemitism.

    There is only one widely accepted definition of antisemitism and it is here:

    http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

    Jonathan Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
  74. I'm probably too late in posting this but -

    Angela - I wonder whether you have read this seminally important article on the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism? I think it has a very important bearing on the current debate.

    http://www.z-word.com/on-zionism/antisemitism-and-anti-zionism/anti-zionism-and-antisemitism%253A-decoding-the-relationship.html?page=1

    ReplyDelete
  75. James,
    thank you. A very timely document which I will read prior to our local dialogue in two weeks time.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Hi Angela,

    I wrote a lengthy response on the other thread, but, when I found it would have to be posted in 5 parts, decided to wait.

    But I just saw this:

    'conchovor define 'mealy mouthed fashion''

    Merely acknowledging the right of the state of Israel to exist because of the Holocaust.

    'where do you find any hint in the report of 'fait acomplis''

    Because it acknowledges no justice to the basis of any kind of state of Israel, namely a fundamental right of Jewish return, as of justice and need.

    'The report goes back to the time of Abraham -'

    Yes, but not so as to grant Jews any kind of fundamental right of return. Merely to stipulate that habitation of the land is predicated on comporting to an absolutely moral mode of behaviour. One which only Israeli, Palestinian or Zionist Jews are found to have substantially violated, not Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims.

    Which is ironic, given that normative Christian tradition has been, for most of Christian history, that Jewish subjection, exile and dispossession has taken place precisely for violating that absolute moral code.

    'not the holocaust'

    But it is only the holocaust which is cited as justification for any state of Israel.

    The report does not go back to the beginning of Christian history and tradition, for instance, which hold that, not only are the Jews an ethno-national group, they are an ethno-national group dispossessed for their rejection of Jesus and prophets.

    Given that has been normative Christian tradition and belief in most parts of Christendom whence most Israeli Jews originated, for most of Christian history, that omission is extraordinary.

    ReplyDelete
  77. conchovor,
    Thank you, this helps me understand your perspective a little better.

    I am not sure that I agree with your statement about the being an ethno-national group dispossessed for their rejection of Jesus and prophets.. that's a very one-sided religious view of history. Racism often exists for no greater reason than fear of the stranger - and I think some of the dispossession you speak of may be attributed to racism rather than religious fundamentalism - but I may be wrong! I simply refer to the Hebrew Scripture's own accounts of why the people of Israel were led to Canaan in the first place.. and how they subsequently were made a remnant.. again how far back do we go? To when the claims began.. in which case you can't blame Christians for persecution (Which is not intended to diminish the extent of offense that Christian's have committed).


    The moral mode of behaviour is only referenced to the theological premise of a 'chosen race' - the Archbishop's comment provides a POSITIVE way of viewing the claim.
    More importantly - the Church does not have the double standard you presume. What is expected with regard to moral behaviour is expected of all of us - including those living here!

    But what really puzzles me is that given that the right of Israel to exist is not disputed in any way and is stated clearly in the report - why do you expect it to be argued for or justified? The Methodist Church has never questioned the right of Israel to exist, and has supported and upheld that position whenever and wherever it has been challenged. Our records make that clear.

    The report points out that the holocaust made the need for a state more pressing - it doesn't at any point claim that to be the only reason for the state of Israel to exist.
    With regard to omissions...
    The report also doesn't go back to the beginning of Jewish history - and the Hebrew scripture's accounts of how it came to acquire Zion,namely via bloodshed and battle with the then inhabitants..
    Is that omission also extraordinary?
    I dont think so, I think such omissions are simply due to their lack of relevance to the main issues the report is trying to address. The report is already 54 pages in length!

    I have been learning a great deal from this conversation, and none of the above is intended to cause offense. I am grateful for the opportunity you have provided for me to appreciate how the report is perceived by others.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Hi Angela
    Something else worth reading on anti-Zionism and and antisemitism, particularly in relation to boycott campaigns
    http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/David%20Hirsh%20YIISA%20Working%20Paper1.pdf
    It's written by the same guy who wrote the previous article I posted
    cheers
    James

    ReplyDelete
  79. 'I am not sure that I agree with your statement about the being an ethno-national group dispossessed for their rejection of Jesus and prophets.. that's a very one-sided religious view of history.'


    But the normative Christian one, for most of Christian history (including, I maintain, Palestinian Christian history).

    'Racism often exists for no greater reason than fear of the stranger'


    But the identification of Jews as an alien people, stems not only from how Jews defined themselves (i.e. as a people in exile), but also from the way did their Christian (and Islamic) host societies. And these were rooted in traditional Christian (and Islamic) views.



    '- and I think some of the dispossession you speak of may be attributed to racism rather than religious fundamentalism'


    I am surprised you think the two are necessarily distinct.

    I would go so far to say as original Christian anti-Zionism, anti-Judaism and antisemitism were often to usually indistinct.


    '- but I may be wrong! I simply refer to the Hebrew Scripture's own accounts of why the people of Israel were led to Canaan in the first place.. and how they subsequently were made a remnant.. again how far back do we go?'

    The beginning of Christian tradition?

    You are Christians, after all...


    'To when the claims began.. in which case you can't blame Christians for persecution'

    The beginning of Christian history will do fine :)

    But if you do want to play the other game, then, Christian tradition is also that Israel is exiled for sin, and restored in forgiveness.

    And that moral principle should be applied to Palestinian Christians and Muslims too, to be consistent.

    Unless you are going to be a Christian nationalist, and say that Palestinian Christians can never sin like ancient Jews.

    'The moral mode of behaviour is only referenced to the theological premise of a 'chosen race' - the Archbishop's comment provides a POSITIVE way of viewing the claim.'

    Yeah. But it finds Israeli, Palestinian or Zionist Jews as those most wanting. Indeed of Zionist Jews for having come in the first place. And not of Palestinian Christians and Muslims for having tried to keep them out.

    The Arab revolt, for instance, is portrayed substantially as a tactical error, not a moral one.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Hello again conchovor

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree on many points, but to try and answer your comments:

    1) It is NOT the 'normative' Christian view of history - so sorry. I can however understand why some might chose to think so. To be perfectly honest and factual - there is no 'normative' Christian view of history - there never has been, as our many denominations and theologies make clear. Some Christians have held the views you mention, some have not, throughout Christian history.

    2) Jews identify themselves as being 'different' 'chosen'. The difference has not been imposed by others but willingly adopted by religious Jews according to the Hebrew Scriptures.

    3) Secularists/humanists are often far more racist than people of faith.

    3) I can see why you would like to limit your historical reflection to the Christian era. But Christians see themselves as sharers in the whole people of God, so for us, history goes back to Genesis. So our reflections should take account of the formation of the Jewish religion and the conquest of Zion and we should consider the bloodshed and religious violence as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures as being just as pertinent to understanding the 'problem'.
    Aren't the Scripture an accurate record the actions of the state of Israel and its relationships with neighbouring Arab/Palestinian peoples at that time?

    4) Jewish tradition (not Christian) is that Israel is exiled for failure to keep its covenant with God (it's the HEBREW scriptures that record this, in the histories and in the works of the prophets!)

    5) Agreed - the moral principal applies to ALL people - but we have never said otherwise.


    6)Archbishop Rowan's comments pass no judgement at all - on any people - it is simply a theological way of understanding the link between land and covenant living.

    I am open to reasoned and reasonable debate and dialogue on how history is interpreted, and how that affects our moral judgment. I see no point, however, to the endless repetition of inaccurate religious propaganda - be it Jewish or Christian.

    I cannot speak for all Christians we are far too diverse a body for that. I can only speak for myself. My opinions are not formed by following blindly religious or philosophical dogmas or ideologies, but by reading and listening and reasoning with others before forming my own conclusions. I am therefore happy to continue to discuss these things as long as there is some substance to your comments. It's time to stop the rather pointless unsubstantiated and largely inaccurate digs at what you think is Christianity - past and present.

    What do you want me to say - that Christians were as bad as the people of Israel have been in the past at slaughtering and persecuting their perceived enemies in the name of their God. - OK agreed -

    Now, is it possible to discuss what is happening TODAY?

    ReplyDelete
  81. I wrote a response to the rest, but had to divide it, then lost it.

    But

    '1) It is NOT the 'normative' Christian view of history - so sorry.'

    I do not know about 'is'. It certainly 'has' been the normative view in most of the parts of Christendom, for most of Christian history, whence originated most Israeli Jews.

    'sorry'?

    I don't think so.


    'I can however understand why some might chose to think so.'

    'chose'?

    Are you saying I am choosing to think so?

    In that case, I say you are choosing to think different.

    'To be perfectly honest and factual - there is no 'normative' Christian view of history - there never has been,'

    With regard to Jews, there has.

    Jews have been regarded as a people dispossessed for their rejection of Jesus and prophets.


    'as our many denominations and theologies make clear.'

    Not really. And I think a case can be made it was what John Wesley thought.


    'Some Christians have held the views you mention, some have not, throughout Christian history.'


    No. With regard to Jews, that view has been pretty normative. In fact, I think you would be hard put to find evidence for Christians having another such view of Jews, for most of the intervening period.

    ReplyDelete
  82. '2) Jews identify themselves as being 'different' 'chosen'. The difference has not been imposed by others but willingly adopted by religious Jews according to the Hebrew Scriptures.'

    Sure. But Christians had their definition of Jews. And they also thought themselves chosen.


    '3) Secularists/humanists are often far more racist than people of faith.'

    So what?

    How does this change Christian tradition, history or views?


    '3) I can see why you would like to limit your historical reflection to the Christian era.'


    In which case I can see why you wouldn't.



    'But Christians see themselves as sharers in the whole people of God, so for us, history goes back to Genesis.'


    Fine.

    In which case, that appropriation of the scriptures, as your unique, especial possession, has been normative for most of Christian history, along with the view that Jewish de-selection, in favour of the gentiles, also entailed their temporal dispossession.


    'So our reflections should take account of the formation of the Jewish religion'

    In which case, also the formation of the Christian religion, surely?


    'and the conquest of Zion and we should consider the bloodshed and religious violence as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures as being just as pertinent to understanding the 'problem'.'

    I am not sure how this is relevant, except as the conquest which normative Christian (and Islamic) tradition has held to have been perfectly in accord with God's ethics and code of the time.

    Just as Christians regarded Jewish temporal dispossession as Jews' just punishment for sin.


    'Aren't the Scripture an accurate record the actions of the state of Israel and its relationships with neighbouring Arab/Palestinian peoples at that time?'


    Huh?

    Are you saying the OT contains references to ancient Palestinian Arabs (other than the occasional references to Ishmaelites, and such)?

    ReplyDelete
  83. '4) Jewish tradition (not Christian)'

    Yes.

    Also Christian tradition.


    'is that Israel is exiled for failure to keep its covenant with God (it's the HEBREW scriptures that record this, in the histories and in the works of the prophets!)'


    Sure.

    And when Israel is forgiven she is restored.

    Which begs the question: why are so keen to maintain this has not been normative Christian tradition for most of Christian history, too?


    For ancient Christians, Jewish dispossession was proof positive of sin and punishment.

    And if that moral were applied to Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims today, it would imply a similar condition.


    '5) Agreed - the moral principal applies to ALL people - but we have never said otherwise.'


    No.

    You just pick at the Jews concerned rather more than your fellow Palestinian Christians (if not also, by extension, it seems, Muslims).


    6)Archbishop Rowan's comments pass no judgement at all - on any people - it is simply a theological way of understanding the link between land and covenant living.'


    I was talking about the Methodist report.

    And I know that Leah, PSC et al. are unhappy with Rowan's statement, as insufficient for their agenda.


    'I am open to reasoned and reasonable debate and dialogue on how history is interpreted, and how that affects our moral judgment. I see no point, however, to the endless repetition of inaccurate religious propaganda - be it Jewish or Christian.'


    Well, you mean you find inconvenient truths inconvenient.

    Sure.

    'I cannot speak for all Christians we are far too diverse a body for that. I can only speak for myself.'

    Well, that is a contradictory statement. Since above that is exactly what you do.


    'My opinions are not formed by following blindly religious or philosophical dogmas or ideologies,'

    So what?

    You clearly find it difficult to confront what has actually been quite normative and unremarkable Christian tradition about Jews.

    'but by reading and listening and reasoning with others before forming my own conclusions. I am therefore happy to continue to discuss these things as long as there is some substance to your comments. It's time to stop the rather pointless unsubstantiated'

    I do not see you offering any substantiation to the contrary.

    'and largely inaccurate digs at what you think is Christianity - past and present.'


    I think it's time you began to be honest.


    'What do you want me to say - that Christians were as bad as the people of Israel have been in the past at slaughtering and persecuting their perceived enemies in the name of their God. - OK agreed'


    No.

    Simply that in most parts of Christendom whence originated Israeli Jews, that the Jews are a people exiled and dispossessed, for their rejection of Jesus and the prophets (certainly for Jesus Christ the Son of God) has been quite normative and unremarkable.

    But now you mention the rest, I think Christians have been able to kill rather more than Jews.

    And or but more to the point, they held, defined or oppressed Jews as a group, dispossessed and dispersed for their sins, specifically the rejection of Jesus and the prophets, in which state they were largely to remain.

    'Now, is it possible to discuss what is happening TODAY?'

    Only if you cease to misrepresent the past with a view to hurting or disadvantaging Jews today.

    ReplyDelete
  84. '3) Secularists/humanists are often far more racist than people of faith.'

    A case can be made that it was only in 1805, with founding of the First French Empire when, for the first time since antiquity, that Jews could transcend their anciently regarded nationality without apostatizing, and become citizens and fellow nationals of the host society in which they resided.

    Even secularists and humanists regarded Jews, by and large, as a distinct people exiled and dispossessed, and they did so largely because of the body of European and other Christian cultural tradition that supported that assumption.

    The French granting Jews of French citizenship and nationality did not entail a revision of that most normative, unremarkable and cultural view, rather of Jews' surrendering all aspirations to its reversal, and submerging them rather with the fate of the French nation.

    It is only comparatively recently, historically speaking, that that view has begun to change, especially among Christians, and mainly in the west.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Conchovor

    Of course you are right.
    You must be.
    so.. here you are:

    in most parts of Christendom whence originated Israeli Jews, the Jews are a people exiled and dispossessed, for their rejection of Jesus and the prophets (certainly for Jesus Christ is the Son of God). The history books record that Christianity has been plagued with antisemitism from its very beginning. There have been no exceptions to this.

    Does this make the slightest bit of difference to the right of all people everywhere - including Christians to call for justice for Israel/Palestinian TODAY - no.

    Does it justify in any way CURRENT Israeli practices with regard to citizenship, equal rights or the blockade - NO

    Does it helpfully encourage FUTURE dialogue and reconciliation in any way - NO.

    Will it change ANYONE'S opinion about the rights and wrongs current situation - I doubt it.

    That would take real dialogue.

    but - you win - you're right - I give up,

    mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

    ReplyDelete
  86. 'So our reflections should take account of the formation of the Jewish religion and the conquest of Zion and we should consider the bloodshed and religious violence as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures as being just as pertinent to understanding the 'problem'.'

    OK. You clearly are not using this in the normative, historical Christian manner, which marked how contemporary Jews, in exile and captivity, were distinctly unmanly and unwarlike in comparison with their noble ancestors, to whom gentile Christians were the more legitimate, or exclusive, heirs and successors.

    It looks to me as though you are attempting to use this as a quasi- or neo-Maricionite stick with which to beat Jews today.

    Well, it ain't gonna work.

    You may have forgotten that Christians and Muslims have normatively and historically seen Jews as seriously falling from their noble Israelite ancestors (and Christians and Muslims as the converse), but Jews haven't.


    ''Aren't the Scripture an accurate record the actions of the state of Israel and its relationships with neighbouring Arab/Palestinian peoples at that time?'

    Leaving aside what you may or may not mean by 'Arab' or 'Palestinian', Yassir Arafat and the Palestinian Arab Islamic nationalist line certainly does not (even while the Israelite conquest of Canaan is the first jihad in Islamic tradition), going so far as to consistently deny that any Jewish temple stood on the site of the Haram, to such an extent that it appears to be a view quite normative in Palestinian Arab Muslim nationalist circles.

    The Methodist report connived with that attitude, I think, in its omitting to mention not only that fact above, but the fact that Palestinian and other Arabs drove out all Jews from Hebron, east Jerusalem and the old city from the late '20s, and it was only with Israeli Jewish reconquest that Jews were able to return.

    That fact will necessarily inform any stance Israel takes on the status of those territories in any final agreement, but it may summed up as that Israel has little to no reason to trust to the goodwill of Palestinian or any other Arab Christians or Muslims in the matter.

    In any case, we are back to the same datum that, if sin and punishment entail exile and dispossession in Jewish tradition, they also do so in Christian.

    Likewise restoration operates at both a temporal and spiritual level.


    Neither of which facts figure in many to any Palestinian Arab Christian theological writings, so far as I can see (least of all in that of Sabeel), nor in that of their fellow pro-Palestinian Christian (and anti-Jewish) nationalists, such as composed the Methodist report.

    ReplyDelete
  87. 'Does this make the slightest bit of difference to the right of all people everywhere - including Christians to call for justice for Israel/Palestinian TODAY' ?

    Well, it very much depends on what you mean by 'justice', doesn't it? If you concoct your definition of 'justice' while at the same time working injustice against Israeli Jews, they are entitled to take exception.

    If you omit or excise from the historical picture the quite unremarkable notion or perception of Jews as a people dispossessed, you are excising one if not the chief justifying principles for Jewish nationalism or any kind of Israel.

    Which is precisely what the Methodist report, concocted by largely pro-PSC activists, does do.

    I.e. it works an act of injustice, by omission, at least.


    'Does it justify in any way CURRENT Israeli practices with regard to citizenship, equal rights or the blockade?'

    Well, using 'supply mitigating circumstances' along with 'justify', of course it does.

    But it puts in perspective precisely the scope and nature of the hostility of the historical Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian nationalist movement Israel confronts.

    If you blacken Israeli Jews, and whiten Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians, you are working an act of pro-Palestinian Arab Muslim and/or Christian, but anti-Jewish, nationalism.

    It is also unjust. Hence not justice.

    ReplyDelete
  88. 'Does it helpfully encourage FUTURE dialogue and reconciliation in any way?'

    Of course it does.

    Because it opens the way to both peoples defining their historical experiences of exile and dispossession, one day, in terms of that of each other.

    That is the last thing Stephen Leah and PSC want.

    'Will it change ANYONE'S opinion about the rights and wrongs current situation - I doubt it.'

    Well, as my prosecutor, as it were, you don't get to tell me my defence.

    'That would take real dialogue.'

    I agree. But you don't strike me as interested.


    'But - you win - you're right - I give up,

    mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.'

    I didn't ask you for that.

    I asked for recognition of the fact that the perception or notion of the Jews as a people exiled and dispossessed, for their rejection of Jesus and the prophets, has been either quite normative or unremarkable, historically in most parts of Christendom (and Islam, actually; including Christian Palestine), whence Israeli Jews originated.

    You don't have to grant it me.

    But Israeli Jews aren't so daft as to forget.

    If you can't remember your history or tradition, with a view to harming or disadvantaging us today, we will remember it for you.

    You can reinvent Christian tradition for today. That is your prerogative. We will remember the old.

    ReplyDelete
  89. 'unmanly and unwarlike'.

    my 'unwarlike' is the wrong term. But, from at least Augustine onwards, Jews are often held to have lost their manly bearing through ceasing to have a state on whose behalf to bear arms. And that thereafter that Jewish men are a physically unimpressive race, again as a punishment, in a view unremarkable.

    I should also qualify 'normative' and unremarkable' by 'in those writings on which Christian clergy (or those by them influenced)' who write on the subject.

    But, again, that

    a) Jews killed or rejected Jesus Christ the Son of God

    b) were punished with loss of temple and Jerusalem


    c)as well as a wider dispossession

    is entirely unremarkable among clergy who write on the subject, certainly in Catholic and Orthodox Christendom, but even amongst Protestant Christians of North Western Europe from the 17th century on, at least.

    The difference there is that, in contrast to Catholics, the logical possibility is allowed that, if God can exile Israel/the Jews, for sin, he can also restore them in his mercy.

    And I would account your own John Wesley as having been one of those.

    His assumption of Jewish exile and dispossession did not arise in the 18th century, ex nihilo. In this he was entirely continuous with preceding Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox tradition.

    Because it has been Christian tradition, from pretty much its origins.

    ReplyDelete
  90. The letter of the law:

    recognising Israel's right to exist.

    The spirit of the law:

    recognising that has some basis in some fundamental justice for the Jewish people, as a matter of right and need (not merely because of 'the Holocaust' i.e. because European Christians couldn't be trusted to look after their Jews properly), entirely analogous to, say, the right of return and restoration of Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims (and that Palestinian Arab Christian and Muslim opposing it was in some measure a work of injustice, fundamental or otherwise).

    The Methodist report actually didn't even go so far as the letter.

    The Methodist conference hardly went any further. Stephen Leah and PSC have no intention of doing so.

    ReplyDelete