God - can we talk for a while?
It's about justice, and compassion and about identity and belonging.
I'm genuinely confused. To my way of thinking, the gospel has little to offer anyone in the Western world unless they are able to own the truth of St Paul's statement that in Christ there is now neither Jew nor Gentile. You chose not to send a Jewish Messiah AND a Gentile Messiah, and yet you offer grace and salvation for all. So at the very core of Western Christianity, whether we acknowledge it or not, is a deliberate choice by the Church to no longer see old divisions, especially not hereditary divisions, those fostered upon us unwittingly by accident of birth.
Which made me genuinely puzzled as to why any Christian here in the UK might insist on putting politics before people - or categories before compassion no matter how 'complex' or 'contrary' a situation might seem to be.
Until I read the Methodist report entitled Justice for Israel/Palestine.
Let me make it clear, I am not interested in getting into a debate about Jews vs Palestinians, neither am I interested in discussing whether or not the report is balanced or biased (that is already taking place at local Church and Circuit level here) What I am interested in, is finding out how Western Christians ever managed to lose sight of the fact that what is at stake in Israel Palestine is not who owns a piece of land but the answer to the question 'who is my neighbour..'
The answer surely should be - every single soul there. The only identity that should matter is the one that you give to each of us - and to every Jew and Palestinian - we are all your people. The parable makes it clear that our neighbour is the person in need, not the person of a particular politics or race or religion.
That we have lost sight of this is evidenced both by the report itself and by the debates currently taking place about it on the Methodist Blogosphere and elsewhere.
It is astonishing how much energy this report has generated.
I had some sympathy with Israelis who insist that they have been misrepresented in the report - not because I think that they have been (I dont) but because the report refuses to play the old games of trying to offer a classic 'say nothing but sigh plenty' approach on the grounds that this is just too complex a socio-political religious problem to get involved in.
This means that the report is not about what Palestinian's have been doing to Israelis or Israelis to Palestinians, it is about the heartache and grief of not loving our neighbour as ourselves. The report works hard to present the core religious and political issues whilst stating clearly that they have been allowed to play too big a part in excusing the inexcusable and blinding the Church and the world to the obvious - people are suffering and dying needlessly and it is time that it stopped.
What little sympathy I had is however being slowly but steadily eroded by the lobbying by those who disagree with the recommendations of the report - not least, the recommendation that the Church be encouraged to read and reflect on it.
As a minister, I have received a variety of emails and letters over this mater. Sadly, not one of them could be considered courteous for all of them began with the presumption that I am anti-Semitic. Many have referred to the Holocaust and several have made direct accusations about a hate campaign against the state of Israel. Some of those who sent the mail have also sent copies of the Jewish Board of Deputies response,. others have written their own responses, and in one case, I was provided with over 40 pages of additional information which it has been suggested I must allow my congregation to read in conjunction with the report in order to offset the presumed bias implicit within it.
All have insulted my Church and presumed that behind the report there is an institutional 'it' to blame. None have taken the trouble to ask me what I personally think of the report and what I might be inclined to do as a result.
I suspect the same degree of lobbying (which is beginning to feel like religious bullying) has been happening elsewhere. What else would persuade one Methodist local preacher and blogger to throw away his better judgement and threaten to sue the Methodist Church over the report? 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 can't help but wonder what he/they really hope to achieve by the action..
It wont further the work of the Gospel
It wont strengthen the witness of the Church to your love and unity
And it wont enable us to recognise all our brothers and sisters in Israel Palestine as our Neighbours
All it will do is hide the loss of life and suffering in Israel/Palestine behind the same old ancient hereditary prejudices that Christ died to end.
the report refuses to play the old games of trying to offer a classic 'say nothing but sigh plenty' approach
ReplyDeleteI think that this is often generally a problem in Church culture in general and is by no means confined to the Methodist Church or even to British Christians.
One of the tasks that I believe people of faith are charged to do is hold up a light to injustice no matter who is doing it. But we have a culture of "I've been harmed and victimised so don't you dare say I'm harming and victimising others."[1]
[1] I will acknowledge that the report could have done a much better job in being balanced in this regard, but I'm talking general approaches at the moment.
So at the very core of Western Christianity, whether we acknowledge it or not, is a deliberate choice by the Church to no longer see old divisions, especially not hereditary divisions, those fostered upon us unwittingly by accident of birth.
A misunderstanding of a theology of The New Covenant seems to be lurking directly behind a lot of the controversy.
So, 'Zionists' are funding The Methodist Preacher, are they?
ReplyDeleteAnd (mis)representing the Palestinian-Israel conflict as that of Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian national victim-Christ colonized/crucified by alien, Zionist Jewish interlopers constitutes justice, does it? Not merely a recapitulation of the passion narrative in nationalist form, an expression of pro-Palestinian Arab Christian (and by extension Muslim) but deeply anti-Jewish nationalism?
Odd, because the one thing most obviously pertinent here, from Christian tradition and ethics, is that, for most of Christian history, not only have Jews been regarded as an ethno-national group, they have been regarded as an ethno-national group exiled and dispossessed (ethnically cleansed) by God the Father as a punishment for their rejection of Jesus Christ God the Son.
With a result being that in the 19th and 20th centuries, most Jews of old world Christendom (and Islam) were regarded not as nationally European (or Arab), but Judean, that is to say, 'Palestinian'. With the further result that most were either killer or effectively expelled: before 1914, mostly to America, after, mostly to Palestine, or what became Israel.
Given the conference report's assumption that Palestinian Arab dispossession entails a right of return and justice, it was odd that nowhere in it, or the conference, was any kind of Jewish right of return, the basis for Jewish nationalism or Zionism, acknowledged, anywhere.
What about the whitewashing of Palestinian Arab Christian behaviour and attitudes to Jews, before and after the advent of modern Zionism, or the birth of Israel? Largely by omitting Palestinian Arab Christian and Muslim sins, and by adducing Zionist, Palestinian or Israeli Jewish ones.
Palestinian Arab Christians, in their own way, practised apartheid against Jews, in the pre-Manadate period.
In the modern Palestinian nationalist period, they acquiesced in or promulgated exclusivism, expulsionism or even elimination of Palestinian or Israeli Jews.
The report, ironically, seems to hold Zionist, Palestinian and Israeli Jewish behaviour to a much higher Christian standard than that of Palestinian Arab Christians (or Muslims, who, after all, profess to revere Jesus as a prophet).
The underlying assumption of the report and most conference members, is that Palestinian Arab Christians have far more adhered to the principles of a chosen people than the Jews concerned.
Which rather assumes that historical apartheid, exclusicivism, expulsionism or eliminationism all constituted aspects of God's divine plan.
The question is: why only single out Jews for it?
Conchovor,
ReplyDeleteI have no idea whether zionists or anyone else for that matter is funding David Hallam's threatened legal action - I just know it wont be cheap.
Surely it is a matter of interpretation as to whether or not there is misrepresentation going on (I confess your para/sentence is more than a little complicated to follow)
Does the behaviour of the past justify the behaviour of the present? NO! This is not about the Holocaust or about the behaviour of Palestinian or Arab Christian behaviour in the 20th Century this is about the treatment of fellow human beings in the 21st Century - hopefully we have ALL learned something.
Yes we do aim for a higher standard - and the Methodist Church is clear that WHEREVER IT IS FOUND historical apartheid, exclusicivism, expulsionism or eliminationism are the work of human evil not of God and certainly not part of God's divine plan.
Jews are not singled out - where do you get such an idea from?
How do you know what the underlying assumption of the report is? On what paragraphs do you base your statements? I was present at Conference - how do you 'know' what I assumed - I can't recall being asked by you.
For help in understanding what Methodists really think of the covenant relationship - why not read section 2.2 Called to Love and Praise (available on the Methodist web site)so much better than simply presuming to know what we think and believe.
I would like to know if there is any way you can use your passion and anger to engage in positive dialogue rather than in an accusatory rant?
Please - by all means engage in dialogue - but dialogue does mean listening and questioning not simply stating opinions. Above all dialogue entails respect for all parties in the conversation.
If you just want to state opinions to the authors of the report - write to them at Methodist Church House. If you want to challenge or engage with the contents of this blog then please do so graciously.
'Yes we do aim for a higher standard - and the Methodist Church is clear that WHEREVER IT IS FOUND historical apartheid, exclusicivism, expulsionism or eliminationism are the work of human evil not of God and certainly not part of God's divine plan.'
ReplyDeleteBut that is the crux of the problem. Manifestly, you do not, since the report omits, erases or ignores that with regard to Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims, now or in the past. It only attributes that, manifestly, to Jews, today, this or past century.
If you do not mention a thing, you do not address it. You ignore it. You ignore anything that could be deemed a cause, excuse or mitigating circumstance of current Israeli Jewish behaviour, so that, in your rigged court case of history, they are found without defence or excuse.
That is not justice.
It is injustice.
If you were right in your claim that there is no mention of the provocation of Israel by Palestinians I would agree with you. However section 5.3 of the report does however make clear for example that:
ReplyDelete'Israelis have legitimate fears, especially of those states that do not recognise Israel’s
right to exist, or whose leaders make inflammatory and threatening statements or support violence on Israel from groups such as
Hezbollah.'
to quote just one part of the section.
I do think it is important to recognise that the report was written for a specific reason, and that there was no way in which it was going to be able to fulfil every expectation of every party concerned BUT that does not mean the end of the debate OR the end of the whole dialogue.
ONE report does not constitute all of Methodist Theology and the church has decried and denounced historical apartheid, exclusicivism, expulsionism or eliminationism in (for example) South Africa, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Darfur etc etc.
If we tried to mention everything in every report nobody would read anything!
Instead, we try and provide sufficient information to persuade our members to look harder for themselves (we are not a doctrinaire Church)
Take a look at the long resources list at the end of the report - it contains a wide and mixed range of material to stimulate further discussion.
I am not asking for 'everything'. I am asking for justice. The report is clearly a work of pro-Palestinian Arab Christian (and, by extension, Muslim), but anti-Jewish, nationalism.
ReplyDeleteThe reference to states is wholly insufficient. Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians tried to keep Jews to a tiny highly discriminated against minority since before the Mandate, and from its beginning moved from trying to exclude, to expel to eliminate them, or acquiescing in that policy.
Israeli Jews are not obliged to ignore this history (just as in their policy on Jerusalem, old and new, they are not obliged to ignore the fact that Palestinian Arabs drove out most Jews from East Jerusalem in the 30s, other Arabs Jews from the old city in 1948, something which also does not appear in the report).
What is lacking is any kind of acknowledgement that the basis of any kind of Israel i.e. some kind of historical Jewish right of restoration and return, the basis of Zionism, and denied by Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims since before the birth of their modern national movement, has a modicum of justice, as of right and need. Something which did not appear at any point in the videoed discussion either.
The fact that the report is a work of pro-Palestinian Christian, but anti-Jewish, nationalism, does not excuse it. Nor does its virtually complete acceptance of it as an accurate and faithful depiction (by you, for instance).
There is a deeper apartheid here, which the Methodist Church has manifestly not decried: the apartheid from which Palestinian Christian evolved to attempt exclude Jews wholly from migrating to the land; and the apartheid promulgated by the report's author/director, Leah, himself a PSC activist, which excludes Jews as a people from the roll of the nations, and seeks to end both Zionism, a Jewish right of return and a Jewish state.
That is also apartheid.
Hmmm..
ReplyDeleteI do wish it were possible to have this dialogue without so many assumptions and presumptions. I hear your interpretations, but they also read as wide sweeping judgments rather than reasoned arguments.
If I understand you correctly, you are objecting a) To the fact that the report does not make any reference to the argument that Israel has a right to exist because of the Holocaust and
b) to the fact that there is no mention of the Palestinian objection to Israel being formed in the first place and that that omission constitutes antisemitism.
in response to a) I refer to section 4.3 of the report - to quote just one section
'The catastrophic Jewish experience of the Holocaust in Europe gave added strength to the call for a Jewish state in Palestine.'
With regard to b) I have heard several conflicting historical claims - but am puzzled as to how the Palestinians could have 'driven out' the Jews when the British had 'control' of the Mandate at that time.
Is the main problem you have with the report seems to be that it is pro-Palestinian and therefore - to your way of thinking - antisemetic?
The Methodist Church (which is composed of a few more people than those who wrote the report) does not accept that to be pro-Palestinian means to be anti-Jewish. It does believe that the CURRENT suffering situation in the land of Israel needs to be heard.
There are, by the way, very few Methodists that have a virtually complete acceptance of any of our reports - leave alone one as controversial as this HOWEVER - it would be very helpful to people like myself whose responsibility it is to disseminate this report to a congregation if, instead of all the rhetoric there was some reasoned debate about the actual CONTENT. All that comes across at the moment is that people think the authors are known antisemites, and antizionists, that the Jewish 'side' of the story has not been told in a report that was requested to tell the Methodist People the Palestinian story.
We could do a lot more good by debating the CONTENT of the report - not the fact that some believe we didn't have the right to write it in the first place.
If you follow the comments on my later post Antisemitism redefined, you will find there are some who are very willing to engage in a learning dialogue - but only by reasoned arguments on the content, not by passionate presumptions about what Methodists think or don't think.
If an injustice has been done, there are more than a few of us willing to address it.
I don't think I mentioned the holocaust, per se, Angela.
ReplyDeleteI am afraid, my dear lady, you reveal the ignorance of recent, as well as pre-modern Palestinian Arab Christian and Islamic history that is precisely the report's weakness. The cry of the 1936 rebels, for instance, was 'The English to the sea, the Jews to the grave'.
Post-war, Palestinian Arab Muslims began an irregular war (in which the Christians of the AHC pretty much acquiesced) which they fully intended to join with regular Arab forces to 'sweep away the Jews as with a broom', as even the highly pro-Palestinian Michael Palumbo writes.
It was very necessary for Palestinian Jews to win that war, irregular and regular, because their enemies made quite clear to them what would happen if they lost.
Again, not that you would know that from the report. You do not seem to know/want to know it ab initio.
My objection to the report is what I have written: there is no acknowledgement of even a modicum of justice to Jewish nationalism, to Zionism, predicated, as it is, on the assumption of justice, of some kind, to a Jewish restoration and return, in other than the tiny (highly discriminated against) numbers Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians had permitted heretofore.
You keep inventing my position, when I think I state it quite clearly: for most of Christian history, Christians (and Muslims) in most of the parts of Christendom (and Islam), whence Israeli Jews originated, have defined, and treated, Jews as a people, an ethno-national group exiled and dispossessed, by God the Father, or Allah, as a punishment for their rejection of Jesus Christ God the Son, or Jesus and the prophets.
(you, now, in the late 20th-early 21st century, may not hold to this view. Fine. But it has been normative Christianity, whether you like or not, for most of Christian history. It was the view of almost all the church fathers, for instance).
With a consequence being that, in the 19th and 20th centuries, most European (and actually also Asian and North African) Jews being defined not as nationally European (or Arab) but as Jewish, Judean, that is to say 'Palestinian'. With a consequence being that most were either killed or expelled, before 1914 mostly to America, after, mostly to Palestine, or what became Israel.
Which is why Israel is the 2nd or largest Jewish community in the world today, along with that of America.
It is no good, in mealy mouthed fashion to begrudgingly admit that Israel may exist (which even the original report did not) while, at the same time, as the report does, to undermine its fundamental moral legitimacy by
a) making no mention of the justice of a Jewish right of return and
b) depicting the conflict, essentially, as a crucifixion, by alien Zionist Jewish interlopers of a Palestinian Arab Christian (and, by extensional) national victim (Christ, really, since by omitting the worst Palestinian sins, and adducing those of the Jews concerned, you are painting the former as white as possible, the latter as black).
Further, Leah, is a PSC activist. And his goal, per the report as well PSC, is to ensure a Palestinian right of return to the territory of Israel, if not an end to a Jewish (which is PSC's pretty much explicit goal, since it seeks to end Zionism and a Jewish state).
ReplyDeleteThis would mean Israel would soon lose its Jewish majority, and soon cease to be Israel, rather an Arab or Palestinian state.
In other word's Leah's permitting of an Israel is, in fact, of an Israel that would not last very long.
Obviously, this is unacceptable to most Israeli Jews.
's the main problem you have with the report seems to be that it is pro-Palestinian and therefore - to your way of thinking - antisemetic?'
Again, your invention or 'interpretation'. I did not criticise the report for being pro-Palestinian. I didn't even call it antisemitic (you seem to enjoy being called antisemitic, even to revel in it).
I said, it was pro-Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian nationalist, while also being anti-Jewish nationalist.
It has adopted the Palestinian Arab Christian nationalist narrative, essentially, of a nation crucified. While adducing neither justification for Jewish nationalism i.e. a Jewish right of return, or mitigating circumstances of its exactions i.e. they are as unreasonable and inexcusable as the actions of the Jewish crucifiers of Christ the innocent lamb.
With due respect, madam, you pose as a Christian moralist. But, actually, you are a Christian tribalist. Because, actually, you swallow, pretty much unexamined, the Palestinian Arab Christian nationalist narrative of a nation crucified.
That isn't ethical Christianity.
It is ethnical Christianity.
'b) to the fact that there is no mention of the Palestinian objection to Israel being formed in the first place and that that omission constitutes antisemitism.'
It doesn't have to: by the way it frames the issue, and by its depiction of the history, it aims, and succeeds, in showing Jewish national claims to be fundamentally illegitimate, without any fundamental moral basis, while Palestinian Arab Christian and Muslim grievances i.e. their nationalist narrative, or at least their more extreme sort, are depicted as fundamentally just.
Conchovor,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments, some of which is very helpful - some of which is just patronising and posturing.
To turn to the helpful comments first:
I am not trying to reinvent or redescribe your position, I am trying to understand it. When you are not as immersed in the history as you are, it not as easy to follow your arguments or logic.
To simply state
You do not seem to know/want to know it ab initio.
is obviously an unjust presumption on your part - I have repeatedly asked for dialogue on content rather than rhetoric out of a desire to understand.
You say
there is no acknowledgement of even a modicum of justice to Jewish nationalism, to Zionism, predicated, as it is, on the assumption of justice, of some kind, to a Jewish restoration and return, in other than the tiny (highly discriminated against) numbers Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians had permitted heretofore.
I disagree, I think the report does make the case for Jewish Nationalism, and repeatedly affirms the right of Israel to exist. It links land and people to the theology of covenant in what many of us interpret to be a very positive way: The people of Israel carry the burden of the covenant - of holding and communicating that which is holy. The report does however ask - shouldn't that go hand in hand with being a 'holy' people - and acting as such.
It asks if the right of return should be extended to Palestinians. And I have heard your argument about numbers.. all the more reason for a viable Palestinian state at peace with its neighbours for Palestinians to return to. It has also made me ask a question which I as yet have no answer to - how far back in history must we go in determining these 'rights' - and why?
The report raises the issue of some of the more extreme forms of Christian zionism and has asked for clarification on this matter in the form of a faith and order report. I have already said that the hope is for that same report to be accompanied by an equally thorough report on the evils of antisemitism.
You go on to state that the report depicts
'the conflict, essentially, as a crucifixion, by alien Zionist Jewish interlopers of a Palestinian Arab Christian (and, by extensional) national victim (Christ, really, since by omitting the worst Palestinian sins, and adducing those of the Jews concerned, you are painting the former as white as possible, the latter as black).'
OUCH - I respect your right of interpretation - but do think you must have some phenomenal presuppositions to make such a claim. The language you use is likewise designed to inflame and agitate:
There is no crucifixion here - likewise there is no painting of Palestinians as white and Israeli's as black. I can accept that there is less of the story of Israeli suffering - but it is there - as is the threat of what fear can lead to. The report condemns the violence of both sides. It also points out the disproportionate response - and the numbers of those killed. Can there ever be an excuse for knowingly, deliberately, bombing children?
Conchovar
ReplyDeleteAnd so to your less helpful comments:
How about dropping the patronizing 'dear lady' and 'Madam' - my name is clearly stated.
My question about antisemitism was genuine - I consider the charge made against the Church I belong to, and thus against me to be a serious one. I do not 'revel in it' as you disgustingly suggest - I have been genuinely trying to understand the basis for the accusation so that it can be rationally rather than emotionally and vacuously dismissed.
The church has not
'adopted the Palestinian Arab Christian nationalist narrative, essentially, of a nation crucified.'
It has done nothing more than receive a report and ask its people to read, reflect and act. No Methodist is BOUND to the report, no Methodist is REQUIRED to agree with it or follow the RECOMMENDATIONS - we are not a dogmatic Church.We have however been asked to read and reflect and dialogue so that we might be better informed!
The problem is when we try to reflect on it, even engage with Israelis in dialogue concerning it, all too often we are just confronted with the sort of presumptions highlighted by so many of your statements. We are all judged guilty of having already decided what we think!
Sheesh!
If I was swallowing 'pretty much unexamined, the Palestinian Arab Christian nationalist narrative of a nation crucified' as you say then I wouldn't be spending so many hours trying to dialogue and reading background material.
You clearly know very little of how the Methodist Church works and does its theology so I guess you have also no idea how preposterous your presumptions seem. You seem to think that once a report has been received by our Conference that all Methodists automatically accept its contents and resolutions.. RUBBISH
The only thing the Conference has agreed to are the resolutions - the content of the report is NOT approved Methodist doctrine or theology - in fact the report openly admits that more work needs to be done on this. We need to dialogue.
But clearly.. if the responses on this and other blogs are anything to go by, finding people willing to help in the process of learning and reflecting is going to prove most difficult.