UCCtruths

Responding in Christ to Islamist Violence Against Christians and Other Minorities in the Middle East

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 16:13:00 +0000

Introductory Note

For the past decade, mainline Protestant churches have largely failed to speak up on behalf of Christians (and other minorities) in the Middle East. Below is the text of a model resolution that members of these churches can rework and submit to the national assemblies of their churches. This text, attempts to address the issue of Triumphalist Islam in an irenic, authoritative and comprehensive manner. It follows the model of resolutions used by the General Synod of the United Church of Christ.

Please feel free to distribute this text as you see fit.

Theological Rationale

“If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.”

– 1 Corinthians, 12: 26-27

“For God did not give us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-control.”

– 2 Timothy 1:7

“If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.” – 1 John 4:15

Christ summons us to partake of His life, His suffering, His death and resurrection. As part of this summons, Christ calls us to stand in solidarity with our fellow Christians during their times of trial. He calls for us pray for and end to the oppression they endure and to actively struggle against it.

Wherever and whenever anyone suffers for the same of Christ, we are called to witness to both the injustice they endure and to the steadfastness they exhibit: the injustice suffered by Christians thwarts the will of God; Christian steadfastness in the face of this injustice brings glory to God.

Christ also calls us to proclaim liberty to the captives, whether their captivity is the result of physical or spiritual oppression. (Luke 4:18) He also calls us to proclaim justice to the nations (Matthew 12:15).

Background: The Roots and History of anti-Christian Violence in Muslim-Majority Environments

The Body of Christ is under attack in Muslim-majority countries throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Christians are being killed, imprisoned, held for ransom, forcibly converted and sold into slavery as part of an ongoing campaign of oppression and ethnic cleansing that began in the early part of the last decade. Christians are not the only targets of this campaign. Other religious minorities such as the Yazidis in Iraq and adherents of the Bahai faith in Iran are also subject to atrocities. Muslims are also the victims of oppression perpetrated by their fellow Muslims.

The overriding impulse behind these acts of aggression is an ideology of Muslim supremacy that holds that Islamic doctrine and jurisprudence should rule every aspect of life in Muslim-majority countries. This ideology causes the life of non-Muslims to be devalued and sets the stage for violence against religious and ethnic minorities (and dissident Muslims) in Muslim-majority countries.

Violence perpetrated against non-Muslims, and the ideas used to justify it, are not new phenomenon, but date back to Islam’s founding. The mistreatment of non-Muslims in Muslim-majority environments and the oppression of apostates has been an persistent aspect of the Muslim faith since its founding in Seventh Century A.D.

The Curse of Dhimmitude

Under Shariah, or Islamic law, which was codified in the years after Muhammad’s death, Christians and Jews were accorded a second class status which in the modern era has been described as dhimmitude. Dhimmitude is derived from the word “dhimmi” which is itself derived from the Arabic word “dhimma” which describes a pact that was thrust upon Christians and Jews who wished to maintain their faith practices when the countries they lived in came under Muslim rule.

As part of this dhimma pact, non-Muslims agreed to pay a special tax for the privilege of practicing their faith in a Muslim jurisdiction. Oftentimes, this tax was collected in a ceremony that included a ritualistic blow to the head or the neck to remind dhimmis that they were paying for the privilege of keeping their head on their shoulders. The goal was to humiliate non-Muslims into submission.

Other rules associated with dhimmitude varied from one location to another but they included a prohibition of building homes or houses of worship higher than that of their Muslim neighbors.

Dhimmis were also prohibited from riding horses, and were deprived of the right to defend themselves against Muslims when physically attacked. Public displays of religious symbols (such as the ringing of church bells or singing of hymns) was prohibited. In some instances, Jews and Christians were required to wear a colored patch indicating their religious identity.

Dhimmi testimony was not accepted in Muslim courts, rendering them vulnerable to mistreatment and oppression. Criticizing Islam or agitating for one’s liberty and equality was out of the question. The first line of enforcement for these rules was the leaders of the dhimmi communities themselves. Jewish and Christian leaders were obligated to make sure that the people in their communities did not get out of line and obeyed these rules.

The ultimate goal of these rules was to demean and humiliate non-Muslims and to encourage them to convert to Islam. These rules also had the tendency of making non-Muslims low cost, no-cost targets of violence and oppression.

If a dhimmi or dhimmi community agitated for its rights or appealed to help from outsiders, they abrogated the right to claim protection from the authorities under the dhimma pact, and as a result, rendered themselves legitimate targets of jihad. This happened a number of times under the Ottoman Empire.

For example, when the Ottoman Empire abolished dhimma laws in 1860, Muslims in Damascus murdered 5,000 Christians because they were no longer behaving in a submissive manner toward the Muslim neighbors. Men were killed and women and children were raped and abducted; some escaped these fates by converting to Islam.

Similar massacres took place in what is now known as modern-day Turkey in the 1870s, 1890s when thousands of Armenian, Greeks, and Assyrian Christians were murdered in response to European interventions on behalf of the rights of Christians in the Ottoman Empire.

The Armenian Genocide, which resulted in the death of 1.5 million Armenians (and thousands of Greeks and Assyrians) between 1915 and 1922, was, in part, a response to the efforts of Armenians to achieve freedom and equality in a Muslim-majority environment.

The spiritual and emotional damage suffered by dhimmi populations is immense, long lasting, and intergenerational. Rev. Dr. Mark Durie, author of Liberty to the Captives: Freedom from Islam and Dhimmitude through the Cross (Deror Books, 2013) reports that living under the conditions of dhimmitude causes people to suffer from “spiritual oppression” and an attitude “fear and psychological servitude to Islam” that is passed from one generation to the next. He writes “people whose ancestors were subjected to the dhimma can suffer the spiritual bondage of their forebears ‘to the third and fourth generation’ (Exodus 20:5, 34:7).”

Living as a dhimmi has political consequences as well. In the latter half of the 20^th Century, Christian populations in the Middle East protected themselves by supporting brutal dictators who would protect them from the violence and hostility directed at them by their Muslim neighbors in exchange for support. Oftentimes Christians would serve as spokespeople and advocates for regimes to the West.

This strategy was particularly evident in Iraq, where Christians supported the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and in Syria, where Christians supported the Assad regime, which brutally repressed the Sunni majority in that country. Egypt’s Coptic minority was also a bulwark of support for the Mubarak regime in Egypt, because it kept radical Sunnis, known as Salafists, out of power.

This was not a strategy available to all religious minorities. Adherents of the Bahai faith for example, are brutally repressed in Iran with no chance of obtaining help from the theocratic government in Iran. Christians are brutally mistreated in Iran as well, especially those who seek to convert their countrymen to the Christian faith.

It must be remembered that Christians in the Middle East are being oppressed in their homelands. Their existence pre-dates the arrival of Islam by centuries. They are not interlopers.

It should also be noted that Muslims are also victims of oppression in Muslim-majority countries. Where Sunnis are the majority, they oppress Shiites and vice versa. Ahmadiyya Muslims, who are regarded as heretics and apostates, are oppressed in Pakistan.

Shariah, or Islamic law establishes a system of structural violence that renders non-Muslims, dissident Muslims and women, legitimate targets of oppression.

In an effort to prevent discussion of the impact of dhimmitude and Shariah as a human rights issue Islamic organizations and leaders have worked to silence criticism of Islam through a variety of means. In particular, they asked the United Nations to promote blasphemy laws and statues that prohibit the defamation of religion. Such laws are already in force in Muslim-majority countries, making it dangerous to discuss issues of human rights under Islam.

Recent History

Anti-Christian violence in Muslim-majority countries faded from the world’s consciousness in the decades after the Armenian Genocide.

Things began to change with the 2003 removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq when Christians in that country found themselves without a protector and subject to terrible acts of violence. Churches have been bombed, clergy kidnapped and murdered, and lay Christians have been regularly killed. Christians used to number approximately 1.5 million in Iraq. Credible estimates indicate there are less than 300,000 Christians in the country today.

Christians in Syria found themselves vulnerable to similar acts of violence as president Bashar al-Assad lost control of large sections of the country as a result of a civil war that began in 2011 and rages to this day.

Coptic Christians were also subjected to terrible attacks beginning toward the end of Hosni Mubarak’s tenure as president of Egypt, which came to an end in 2011. Fortunately, the situation for Christians in Egypt has improved substantially under the leadership of Egyptian President Abdel Fatah Sisi who has taken a tough line with the Muslim Brotherhood, which was removed from power in 2013, but the hostility and violence directed at Copts in their homeland remains a problem.

The recent kidnappings of hundreds of young women in Nigeria by the Islamist organization Boko Haram and multiple massacres of Coptic Christians by ISIS in Libya demonstrates that radical Islam threatens Christians in North Africa. Violent attacks against Christians in Pakistan indicate that it is a problem in Asia as well.

Something must be said and something must be done about this rising tide of Islamist violence.

Signs of Hope

We must acknowledge unequivocally that not every Muslim adheres to the notion of supremacy over non-Muslims; to fail to do so would be false witness. There are some resources within Islamic tradition that can be used to justify a more tolerant and peaceful attitude toward non-Muslims. For example, there is a passage in the Koran that states “there is no compulsion in religion.” Unfortunately, many Muslim scholars assert that this passage and others like it, which came early in Mohammad’s career, were superseded, or abrogated by a number of other passages (which came later in Mohammad’s life) that call for the violent oppression of non-Muslims and the execution of people who would leave the faith.

Nevertheless, some Muslim intellectuals appeal to these earlier passages to convince their co-religionists to refrain from acts of violence against their non-Muslim neighbors, but they are not in the majority. This is a consequence of a decision made by Muslim scholars to close the “door of interpretation” or (bab al-itjihad) in the 11^th Century. Writing in 111 Questions on Islam, Samir Khali Samir, S.J. reports that as a result that once this door was closed, it was “no longer possible to interpret the text.” He continues, “Hence today, even the mere attempt to understand its meaning in a certain context is regarded as a desire to challenge it. And it is a true tragedy for the Islamic world…”

Moreover, Samir writes that in modern times, “efforts have been made” to interpret the Koran in context, but that they have “almost always [been] in vain.” He continues: “The weight of the tradition and, above all, the fear of questioning the acquired security of the text have created a taboo: The Qur’an cannot be interpreted, nor can it be critically rethought.”

Still, there are signs of hope.

Recently, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah Sisi spoke to scholars at Cairo’s Al Azhar University, the most important center of learning for Sunni Muslims in the world. He told the scholars “We must revolutionize our religion” adding that by embracing the ideas it does, “the Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is heading to perdition. We ourselves are bringing it to perdition.” That Sisi made such a speech at Al Azhar, which has traditionally been a source of Islamic supremacism is remarkable. It remains to be seen if scholars at the school will take up Sisi’s challenge.

One group of Muslims in the United States, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), has worked to promote discussion of the topics delineated above. In a recently published statement, AIFD has condemned the push to create “Islamic” states where non-Muslims are oppressed. The organization has also called on Muslims to “promote reforms where necessary, including an honest and critical reinterpretation of scripture and shariah law used by Islamists to justify violence and oppression.”

The AIFD also declares “Neither jihadism nor Islamism permit the equality of all humans irrespective of their race or religion and should therefore be rejected.”

Hopefully, Muslims in the Middle East will start to address these issues, sparking the “revolution” within Islam that Egyptian President Sisi was calling for when he spoke to scholars at Al Azhar in Cairo.

We must remember that Islam does not have a monopoly on religious violence. Christians have struggled with their faith’s historical hostility toward the Jewish people, which has had catastrophic consequences. They have also confronted the role their faith played in the destruction and oppression of indigenous peoples throughout the world.

The fact that we as Christians are not without sin does not preclude us from lifting up our voices about the mistreatment of our fellow Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities in Muslim-majority countries throughout the world.

To remain silent at a time such as this would only add to our sin.

We must pray, we must discern, we must act.

Resolution: A Call to Prayer, Discernment, and Action

WHEREAS violence against Christians and other religious minorities in Muslim-majority environments is threatening the destruction of people groups in the Middle East; and

WHEREAS massacres, kidnappings and the enslavement of Christians and Yazidis in Syria and Iraq has reached epidemic proportions; and

WHEREAS violence against Copts in Egypt remains a threat and the murder of Copts in Libya has become an undeniable outrage; and

WHEREAS this violence is not a new phenomenon, but has its roots in Islamic doctrine, jurisprudence and tradition dating back centuries; and

WHEREAS Shariah law as it is applied in Muslim countries throughout the world represents an undeniable manifestation of structural violence and a defamation of the name of God; and

WHEREAS dhimmitude renders non-Muslims low cost, no cost targets of violence; and

WHEREAS some Muslim leaders have attempted to place discussion of these problems beyond the pale of acceptable discourse by promoting the passage of laws that prohibit “blasphemy” and the “defmation of religion;” and

WHEREAS a growing number of Muslim leaders and intellectuals are struggling to re-open the “door of interpretation;”

WE WITNESS AND LAMENT the ongoing destruction of Christian communities in the Middle East, the region of our faith’s birth, and the oppression of our Brothers and Sisters in North Africa and Asia; and

WE PROCLAIM that as Christians we are called to pray on behalf of those who are dying for the name of Christ and that we are called to speak up for the principles of religious freedom; and

WE RESPOND to this call by condemning violence against people of all faiths throughout the world and by standing in solidarity with the victims of Islamist violence wherever it takes place; and

WE PRAY for the violence against Christians and other religious minorities to end; and

WE PRAY that God manifest His presence the decisions of political leaders of all faiths and countries as they confront the rising tide of Islamist violence throughout the world; and

WE PRAY that world leaders of all faiths and ideologies be given the wisdom, the strength and confidence to stem the violence through the application of justice, mercy, and restraint; and

WE PLEDGE to educate ourselves, our congregations, our neighbors, and our community leaders about Shariah law, its impact on Muslims, non-Muslims and women and to discern and counteract the impact of dhimmitude on our fellow Christians; and

WE PRAY that Muslim leaders acknowledge the rights of their followers to convert to other faiths and work to encourage their followers to acknowledge the dignity of women, for they too are created in the image of God; and

WE PLEDGE to work for the safety of religious targeted communities throughout the world; and

WE PROCLAIM Christ’s liberty to the captives of religious violence and oppression, whether they be its victims or perpetrators. We are glad to see principled Muslims confront Islam’s legacy of hostility and violence against non-believers. We pray that their numbers may grow and that their efforts become more effective; and

WE ACKNOWLEDGE violence and sin perpetrated by Christians throughout history; and

WE PLEDGE to not let our guilt over these events to be used to silence us over the mistreatment of our co-religionists and other victims of religious violence in Muslim-majority countries; and

WE PRAY that God will embolden the faith of our fellow believers, soften the hearts of their tormentors and enliven the intellects and consciences of those who have been bystanders to this violence for far too long.

What You Will (and Won't) See on Global Ministries Website.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:28:00 +0000

What you will see.

What you won't.

Global Ministries Publicizes Anti-Zionist "Bethlehem Call"

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:21:00 +0000

Hello.

This is Dexter Van Zile.

I left the United Church of Christ a few years ago.

And this blog has been silent for quite a while.

Nevertheless, I am going to impose on James Hutchins' kindness and hospitality and use UCCtruths to draw peoples' attention to the Global Ministries website.

As most followers of this website know, the Global Ministries of the UCC and the Disciples of Christ has been a persistent source of anti-Israel messaging over the years. This volume of anti-Israel messaging has declined substantially in the past few years, particularly since the 2007 General Synod which stated that the 2005 General Synod failed to take into account all of the aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict in passing the resolutions it did.

The anti-Israel messaging hasn't disappeared altogether, however. For example, Global Ministries publicized "The Kairos Document" issued by Palestinian Christians a few years back.

More recently, Global Ministries has publicized a document titled "The Bethlehem Call." This document, created by the same folks who wrote "The Kairos Document," is a pretty ugly text.

One notable passage states: "The deligitimization and criminalization of the Israeli government and its local and international support base is gaining unstoppable momentum."

Here, the document affirms the delegitimization and crimininalization of the Israeli government itself.

Have you seen any documents on the Global Ministries website affirming the delegitimization and criminalization of other governments in the Middle East?

I don't think so.

There are other passages in The Bethlehem Call that are of interest. For example, the document describes The Amman Call issued by the World Council of Churches in 2007 as ending "60 years without a unified Christian voice speaking against the Israeli occupation of Palestine."

Do the math (2007-60=1947) and you'll see that what the authors of The Bethlehem Call have done is to declare all of Israel occupied territory. They are not talking merely about the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but the entire state of Israel.

Exactly why is Global Ministries publicizing a document such as this?

Ex-UCC President & GM Thomas Leaving Wife for Another Woman

noreply@blogger.com (Living the Biblios) — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:22:00 +0000

This is sad...

It is now public knowledge that Rev. John H. Thomas, recently retired President and General Minister of the UCC (1999-2009), is seeking a divorce from his wife and is presently in an adulterous relationship with another woman, someone with whom he worked at the denominational headquarters in Cleveland.

In a carefully worded UCC press release, the Collegium of Officers--who oversee the national ministry--announced Thomas' admission and urged support for the process that handles matters affecting the larger church. While the statement described in detail how Thomas' case might be reviewed, it did not say that an evaluation was pending. There was no mention how the revelation has affected Thomas' status at Chicago Theological Seminary, where Thomas serves as Senior Adviser to the President and Visiting Professor in Church Ministries.

The press release is intriguing for what it says and does not say. It does not explain the process that brought this information to light. It does not pass any moral judgment on Thomas. Even more, it does not express any emotion of grief or disappointment over Thomas' action. The only religious speak is the mention of "prayerful support for all parties involved."

What the press release does say, in its opening paragraph, is that Thomas is, "now in a committed relationship with a woman with whom he worked while he was general minister and president." Why is the word "committed" used to describe Thomas' relationship with this other woman? Don't worry, this is not some brief (and socially unjust), sleazy fling. It's a committed and deeply entrenched adulterous relationship!

Adding to the moral confusion is a curious phrase from the Collegium's statement. While claiming, "it is not appropriate to discuss details of this matter publicly," they disclose that when they talked to Thomas and his in-office lover, "Both parties have informed the Collegium that the relationship is entirely consensual." Why is this said? Are we to believe that even though Thomas held the foremost position in the entire organization, there's no abuse of power because it was consensual?

The release does not say how this affair started. Maybe it began when the two still worked in the office, or, after one or both left. The circumstances matter, especially if Thomas' lover has a change of heart and decides to sue. Either way, boundary lines were crossed. Two consenting adults doesn't make this right. A marriage covenant was broken and quite possibly, so too were personnel policies. What does the Collegium know about this situation? If they do not protect the employees of its denominational headquarters from sexual advances and/or harassment, they fail the organization and contribute to its dysfunction.

As is often the case, the only UCC folks offering moral clarity is the Biblical Witness Fellowship. In its statement, they declare that Thomas' action, "deepens the crisis of integrity in the UCC with consequences well beyond the tragic dissolution of his own family...The whole church is deeply hurt when our leaders fail to keep their vows and engage in this form of duplicity. It compromises the witness of all of us in the body of Christ."

In a 2010 address at Chicago Theological Seminary, Rev. Thomas declared that, "Distracted ministry occurs when we quit paying attention to what truly matters." Sadly, this truth is illustrated by Thomas' own sordid personal life. Rev. Thomas, if you are reading this, you need to repent. End this illicit relationship and return to the wife of your youth. Don't let this become part of your legacy. Turn to our gracious and merciful Lord for forgiveness and restoration.

The question of Thomas' fitness for ministry is now the responsibility of the Church and Ministry Committee, of the Western Reserve Association, a smaller and more local setting of the larger Ohio Conference.

Let's hope this committee has the courage to confront Rev. Thomas and hold him accountable.

Center Congregational on the Brink

noreply@blogger.com (Living the Biblios) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:24:00 +0000

Center Congregational Church's fight against the UCC's Southeast Conference to retain its autonomy and property is reaching a critical point. In order for the church to prevail, your help is needed.

According to Center's pastor, Rev. J.R. McAliley III, Center has a $17,000 legal bill, but only $9,000 left in assets. This is after the church spent over $40,000 in legal fees preparing for its upcoming court hearing. "We knew this would be a costly process and it has been," said McAliley. "We truly believe our cause is just and that our case is sound, but we cannot proceed without the financial resources to maintain our legal effort. We need your assistance."

With Center drained of its resources, the Southeast Conference is in position to outlast and outspend its way to victory. But as the UCC is so fond of saying, God's justice belongs to the cause of the weak. Center Church, located in Atlanta, sits on land donated in trust by the Cox family. The trust stimulates that as long as the church remains congregational, the land and the building belong to the church. When the UCC came into existence in 1955, Center chose to remain independent. In 1994, the church joined the UCC, but disassociated in 2005, and in 2006 joined the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches (NACCC). McAliley believes this lawsuit is not so much a UCC style King Ahab effort to steal away land (1 Kings 21), but an effort to seize legal control over the right to congregationalism:

The legal impact of our case – defining “the Congregational Denomination” – is one with implications for every Church and Organization historically associated with the Congregational Way. Center’s little ¼ acre of land in Buckhead, an upscale section of Atlanta, Ga, even at the current speculative market value of about $500,000.00 is not the goal of the UCC/SECUCC. Legal “ownership” of the designation as the true legal successor to “the Congregational Denomination” is and the implications will spread like a tsunami.

In order for Center to win this battle, your donations are needed and can be sent here:

Center Congregational Church
1055 Moores Mill Road NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30327-1627

WSJ: The Bully Pulpit

noreply@blogger.com (Living the Biblios) — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:50:00 +0000

Wake up slumbering UCC Truths!

We interrupt this Rip Van Winkle sleep to thank the Wall Street Journal for shedding light on the UCC's Southeast Conference effort to steal away the assets of the small Center Congregational Church in Atlanta.

The article, "The Bully Pulpit," written by Jim Auchmutey, appears on the Journal's website and print edition.

So why is the Southeast Conference so interested in this little church? It all boils down to this--pure greed.

Center's property--located in prime Atlanta real e$tate--is held in trust, and technically not by the church itself. That crack in the door is the opening by which the thief is trying to enter.

According to the winter, 2009 edition of Networker, published by the Evangelical Association, the Southeast Conference claims that they are the only true successors of the Congregational denomination, while Center rightly replies the Congregational tradition includes not only the UCC, but also the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches (NACCC), the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (CCCC), and the Evangelical Association of Reformed and Congregational Christian Churches (EARCCC).

If Center Church was dissolving, the Southeast Conference might have a legitimate case. Instead, this little congregation voted to leave the UCC in 2006. Even though 36 in attendance is considered a good Sunday, the church is still very much alive. Bottom line, they disaffiliated and are entitled to keep their assets, as the UCC Constitution explictly states.

Oh, one more thing. Center and its pastor, Rev. J.R. McAlilley, oppose a conviction held in highest esteem in UCC culture--same-sex marriage. While the Conference Minister, The Rev. Timothy Downs, says that Center could have remained and dissented because the UCC welcomes a diversity of opinion, in practice, UCC churches that oppose same-sex marriage rarely (if ever) have platforms in conference life to express that dissent.

May Goliath fall down again.

Not a goodbye...

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:32:00 +0000

You've probably noticed that I have not posted in awhile and friendly emails asking what is going on have mostly gone unanswered. The quick answer is that I'm taking a step back from the site for awhile. For some time I've been juggling multiple priorities between my family, my full time work and assisting with a couple of start-ups. Working with this site was never a focal point in my life, it filled in gaps of time and gave me a platform to express my opinion while giving others the opportunity to express their opinions. While many people are going through some difficult times in this economy, I'm fortunate and blessed that work is going well. The downside is that it has become more difficult to create time for my biggest priority - my family. As a consequence, I've forced myself to set priorities and, at least for now, UCCtruths didn't make the cut.

My choice was to either hand off the site to someone else, close it down or put it on ice. After considerable thought and after discussion with others involved in the site, I decided that "hiatus" was the right term. The message board will stay open and I will be assigning more moderators so that others can keep up on the threads while keeping them civil.

My intent is to come back when things settle down but I fully recognize there is a potential that I will not be back. In which case, I'd like to wrap with potentially one last commentary on the United Church of Christ.

Embracing dissent and difference of opinion is an important part any dynamic group whether it's our government, our work, our religion or an online group of malcontents. As cliche as it sounds, Working through the tension of division always makes the group stronger.

The United Church of Christ leadership would be wise to embrace those with which they disagree with the most... and not just those they deem "loving critics". To this day, I don't know if UCCtruths was considered a "loving critic"... and I don't really care - the idea that the one being criticized can determine which criticism is valid seems a little too convenient and a little too self serving.

Our faith heritage is full of dissent and I'm glad I was able to add my voice to the chorus. In over 5 years, this web site has generated millions of views. The message board contains tens of thousands of messages by over 500 users and was recently recognized as one of the top 2% in Yahoo Groups. My purpose for the site was never to change the UCC but to find an audience of UCC members that would use this site as just one of many sources of information about the denomination. We found an audience looking to embrace dissent even if they did not always agree with it.

Dissent doesn't always mean you are right. I'm particularly thankful for those who tolerated my rants even when I was wrong. The web is an imperfect medium of listening, learning and responding... and not always in that order.

Like I mentioned earlier in this post, it's my intent to come back to this at some point in the future but there are no guarentees. If nothing else, I'll be popping up on the message board periodically to spout off. Till then...

Wright Blasts the Media

noreply@blogger.com (Living the Biblios) — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:52:00 +0000

by Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

Rev. Jeremiah Wright-- former pastor of President elect Barack Obama-- is speaking out against the media's treatment of him during the campaign season.

During a Q & A session after an address in Connecticut, Wright declared:

"The world doesn't know about my 41 years of ministry, or my writing of books, because it was all taken down to a 10-second sound bite that the media chose to show about a sermon that was delivered seven years ago," Wright said. "The media didn't care about the whole sermon and what it was about. They just used those 10 seconds and used it as a weapon of mass destruction against [Obama's] campaign."

It's true. The world doesn't know Wright's years of ministry and doesn't know his books. Nor does it need to. The world knows plenty enough to judge Wright. It knows that after the greatest atrocity on American soil in modern times, Wright's pastoral word post 9-11 was America be damned because it deserves to be damned.

Lest anyone forget, Wright's past wasn't completely ignored. Back in March, ABC News reviewed dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, and in their words, "found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans."

You don't need to look further into Wright's past to see that he views this country as systemically racist and incapable of reform. Just consider this recent remark:

"If you take a Tiger Woods, a Michael Jordan or a Barack Obama, their success should not lull us into thinking society has changed."

Translation: the accolades about Obama's "historic" victory are severely overblown.

A few days later, speaking before an audience at Northwestern University, Wright again lamented his treatment:

In the question-and-answer session, Wright accused the media of "public harassment." "My family's getting lynched in the process," Wright said. "Never in the history of this country has there been a demonization of a person like I've been demonized."

Family getting lynched? Who in the media has targeted his family? The only thing close was the New York Post's report of a likely affair by Wright. And demonized by like no other person in the history of the United States? Can you say, "slight exaggeration"? Certainly, Wright's circus performance at the National Press Club had nothing to do it.

Listening to Wright's address at Northwestern was another well-known Obama associate, former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, who summarized the result of the media's treatment this way:

"Both Rev. Wright and I were brought up as cartoon characters in this campaign because of disinformation and dishonest news," Ayers said. "I did not suffer as much as he did, but we both got out of it with a certain amount of dignity."

Yep. Forever elevated in our minds is the ego and radical left-wing politics of this complicated man of faith, Rev. Wright.

United Church of Christ: Obama come back

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:50:00 +0000

The United Church of Christ's has sent an appeal to President-elect Barack Obama to attend a UCC church in the Washington D.C. area once his family moves to the White House. The public invitation from UCC President John Thomas was part of a post-election letter to President-elect Obama. In light of the problems Obama faced with Trinity United Church of Christ, picking a church may not be as easy as it sounds. From The Hill:

There’s also the potential for Obama, sitting in the pews, to be linked with remarks made at the pulpit. Religion already created problems for Obama during the campaign, first with false rumors that he was secretly Muslim and then with the incendiary remarks made by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, prompting the Obamas to leave Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ in May.

But the sudden departure from the Chicago church didn’t stop the national church from inviting the Obamas to try a new location.

“[The letter] invited him to consider finding a spiritual home for him and his family at one of the UCC churches in the Washington area,” said Sandy Sorenson, the UCC’s associate for communications and media advocacy in Washington.

“So the invitation has been extended, and I think some of the local churches themselves have extended an invitation. But I have not heard anything yet about where he’s thinking about attending.”

In my less-than-humble opinion, the public invitation to Barack Obama is yet another publicity stunt for our denomination that is plainly begging to be relevant. A private invitation would have gone much further in demonstrating a respect for discretion that should be afforded to any public figure and their family looking for a house of worship. And whether intentional or not, the public invitation creates an awkward test for Obama: If he selects a UCC church, it provides validation for the denomination and if he does not, it is a snub... which is an incredibly unfair position to force on someone.

Hope and Faith

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:23:00 +0000

It would be a gross distortion to say that Barack Obama's historic election is simply a partisan affair. Far from it, this election is probably the single most significant historical event in our lifetime. While today will forever be remebered because we have elected the first black president of the United States, it is a far greater event which we may not fully appreciate in our lifetime. In no small measure, Obama's improbable election is symbolic of the ideals on which this nation was founded.

Being in the United Church of Christ, we have a unique view of this election. Once "one of our own," Obama pragmatically decided to leave his church (and ultimately our denomination) before his campaign could be undermined by his minister and the media. In our celebration of Obama's victory, we must also acknowledge ~and learn from~ the loss of one of our most significant members. Most of us will never have to face the scrutiny of a national election, but many of us struggle to maintain our own identity with the United Church of Christ when our leaders marginalize our own members and those of other faiths.

The hope that fueled the enthusiasm of Obama's campaign is not all that different from the hope that we should identify in our faith and in our denomination. Although our country is mired in global and financial turmoil, we have turned a significant corner. As a denomination, we too must find a way to turn that corner.

Coincidence? Another ordination of a woman priest taking place in UCC church

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:58:00 +0000

Another United Church of Christ church is poised to be at least the third UCC church to host an ordination of Catholic women... this one is in Chicago. From the Chicago Tribune:

The ceremony, to be held at St. Paul's United Church of Christ in Lincoln Park, is being organized by Roman Catholic Womenpriests, an organization that is not recognized by the Catholic Church. The group, which began in 2002, also will ordain three women as deacons in preparation for priesthood.

The Vatican has said repeatedly that only men can be ordained priests because Jesus did not call women to be apostles, and because the priest stands in the image of Jesus, who was male. Officials with the Chicago archdiocese denounced the ceremony and reiterated the Vatican decree that states the person who ordains the woman, as well as the woman herself, will be excommunicated. An excommunicated person is forbidden to receive the sacraments.

Back in July, the UCC-affiliated Church of the Covenant in Boston hosted an ordination of women priests which drew support from former UCC Conference Minister Rev. Nancy S. Taylor.

As I stated back then and now again, I can't help but think this meddling in other faiths is part of the creeping anti-Catholicism in the United Church of Christ.

Dissent over restructuring is growing

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:47:00 +0000

I have to admit to having mixed feelings about the United Church of Christ's proposed restructuring plan. When you look at the current structure of the national office with the boards and committees, it is easy to appreciate the inefficiencies that the new plan is trying to correct. The big problem is the manner is which the national office would like to centralize the functions of how it is governed. Rather than extract effeciencies by making the existing governing bodies flatter (same organizational structure, just fewer layers) they are trying to make it narrower by creating a single governing board. While that might work for other denominations, it will never work in the United Church of Christ.

One group, the Joshua Generation Leadership Team, is trying to make a difference and is trying to make it's voice heard regarding the restructure with an online petition form. Why do they need our help? From the online petition:

Here are just 5 of the many reasons why we need your help:
The process has been unjust.
a. Despite the multitude of serious and legitimate concerns that have been raised by several different branches of the church, including the historically underrepresented groups (HUGs), the concerns have been ignored and the process has continued ahead.
b. In a restructure of this magnitude, it would seem very appropriate that each of the incorporated board of directors of the Covenanted Ministries would have their own specialists, consultants, and legal counsel advising them on what is in their best interests as an independent corporation of the church. Instead, this process has been facilitated by one sole consultant, who was hired by one arm of the church.
c. Not all of the historic, elder leaders of the church were consulted about the proposed restructure in a timely fashion, despite public claims that the key past leaders were included in the process.

We have been a church that has historically chosen not to place
power in any one place. Because of our congregational culture, power has always been in the local church however, this proposed restructure shifts the power to a central place. Also, where is the decision making checks and balances of a single governance board? A single governing board is a condensation of power with no checks and balance system. It also seems largely staff driven given that staff will have both voice and vote at the Executive Committee level.

We have always been a church who has fought, and continues to fight, against elitism. The single-board structure promotes elitism for the following reasons:
a. A smaller, single-board structure limits the amount of participation (and thus, the development of new leaders) from every single segment of the UCC.
b. We have always fought for economic justice, yet what about the class implications in a single-board structure? Because the board would shrink, the amount of decisions and responsibility of each board member would increase. Board meetings would thus be much longer. Only those who had a surplus of free time would be able to serve.

This has not been a mission-driven restructure; it has been a
financially-driven restructure. We are a church, not a corporate entity
driven by product. The missions of the church have not been the first priority in this restructure; instead it has been motivated by efficiency and money.

It is as if we are erasing the rich history of our church and are
starting from scratch. The rich history of this church seems lost in this proposed restructure. It is as if we are beginning from ground zero and remaking the identity and culture of the church. We would be appalled if certain chapters of American history were removed from the textbooks, why should the history of the UCC be any different?

I would encourage you to review the information and consider signing the petition. I think the points they make are completely accurate and reflective of where we are as a denomination.

The leaders of the UCC don't like this petition at all... and they shouldn't. As the petition states, the catalyst for the restructure is money, not mission. The leaders of the United Church of Christ have not proven themselves to be honest nor have they proven themselves to be good stewards of our financial resources... and the best example is to see is how the television advertising campaign has been run. When the ad's were rejected by NBC because they "inappropriately suggested that churches other than the UCC are not open to people of diverse races and backgrounds," UCC leaders falsely claimed that the ad was rejected because it's "welcoming" message was "too controversial". To compound the problem, the national office continually fell short of fundraising goals to pay for the ads and it's presummed that the covenented ministries picked up the tab.

So why reject the restructuring? Because restructuring is dependent on trust that a centralized body will act in the best interests of the whole denomination, not just the best intentions of those at the top. Our leaders have not earned that trust.

Read the petition and consider signing it today.

Sacred Conversations are Usually No Earthly Good!

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:06:00 +0000

Note: Since the creation of UCCtruths, I've had a policy that any leader within the United Church of Christ is welcome to submit commentary which will be posted, unedited and without commentary, on the top of the site.

Rev. Graylan Scott Hagler, Senior Minister of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ & National President of Ministers for Racial, Social and Economic Justice Of The United Church of Christ has submitted the following commentary for UCCtruths to post:

Sacred Conversations are Usually No Earthly Good!

October 9, 2008

By: Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler,Senior Minister, Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ & National President,Ministers for Racial, Social and Economic JusticeOf The United Church of Christ

This past May 18, 2008 The United Church of Christ, a denomination known for its liberalism called for a “Sacred Conversation on Race” to take place in its pulpits across the nation. This call to the congregations was made in the aftermath of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright-Barack Obama controversy since both were affiliated with The United Church of Christ. Some United Church of Christ ministers called a meeting in the Washington, DC area to discuss this initiative by the denomination. The gathering was revealing to say the least. Most of the fifty odd ministers who were present were predominantly white and attested to their liberalism and openness to other races, and how each of the ministers had somehow in the past stood up for a person of another racial group at some traumatic moment. The black ministers in the room each testified to the fact that they needed not “A Sacred Conversation on Race,” but straight talk on racism which was the issue that impacted their lives negatively. As usual this created tensions between the black and white clergy participants where the whites perceived that they were being “put down” for their past stances and their proclaimed liberalism, and the blacks felt that the issues of racism were being ignored for the sake of a feigned peace between the races and to advance the desires of a denomination to have a “marketplace” identity.

Indeed this was not the first time in recent history that The United Church of Christ attempted to use an issue to stake out a position in the fiercely competitive world of church growth and identity theology. The denomination in the previous five years created a “God is Still Speaking” public relations campaign that focused on its openness to people no matter of their sexual orientation, gender, race or disability. This is a message to be applauded except the ads implied that The United Church of Christ was more superior and forward thinking than any other denomination. Many denominations took exception to this, and even some of the television stations slated to air the ads pulled them. This campaign however put the church further into debt, and as a consequence of the hemorrhage of funds the director of the campaign was fired – a black man!

Over the last ten years The United Church of Christ in its national office has tended to have less blacks and other people of-color in its employ. In hard economic times the old adage held true even within the church for blacks and other people of-color, “the last hired and the first fired.” Furthermore black male clergy on national staff in the church is at an all time low. All of this serves as a backdrop to the church’s “Sacred Conversation on Race.”

In May when The United Church of Christ clergy met at that church in Washington, DC, the decision was made that black and white clergy would meet over the ensuing months to discern how we might make this conversation relevant, and to take it beyond the publicity stunt that the denomination intended. In those ensuing meetings however the white participation dwindled to less than a hand full, and it became apparent that though the denomination wanted “A Sacred Conversation on Race” and prides itself on liberalism even its ministers did not want to deal with the issues of racism or the institutional racism that plagues this church and many others like it. But just as the prophet Jeremiah proclaims, there is "remnant" people that will make a stand in easy times and in times that are not too easy, and will lift up a message that needs to be lifted, even in spite of The United Church of Christ’s attempts to sanitize and homogenize people and issues. Therefore beginning in October and spanning over the next three weeks, this handful of United Church of Christ clergy, black, Hispanic and white, will host “town hall” gatherings in a white, Hispanic, and black congregation so that people can engage in a culturally diverse setting and have a real discussion on racism. Hopefully we all may grow in the process out of these frank conversations that may anger people at times, but will hopefully help to build a context where people out of their diversity might truly come together and combat the “isms” that separate and often destroys possibilities of ever coming together as a church, a people and a nation.

'Get Religion' gets UCCtruths

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:04:00 +0000

We got a nice link reference yesterday morning on GetReligion.org from Terry Mattingly:

So, who is the better Christian in the White House race?

The Times of London claims that it wants to know.

Seriously?

Things don’t look good for the old mainline Protestant — that would be Sen. John McCain — but the new era of Oprah-friendly liberal Protestantism is doing just fine. Sen. Barack Obama’s United Church of Christ brand of faith is a hit on the other side of the Atlantic, while the numbers in the pews here in the U.S. are nothing to write home about.

Not everyone liked the reference though... cranky Pastor Dan threw a tantrum:

Almost too many problems to mention here:
John McCain continually fudges his religious identity. Is he an "oldline
Protestant" Episcopalian, or a Southern Baptist, or really not much of anything?

Despite Mattingly's slurs, the United Church of Christ is an overwhelmingly
traditional, even orthodox, denomination. I know people would like to think of
us as somehow "New Age-y". We're not. He knows that.

Yes, Oprah briefly attended Trinity UCC. She left. He knows that too.

Mattingly cites UCCTruths without noting that they're knee-jerk opponents of the national UCC, hence not an unbiased source. He also fails to mention that basically no denomination has "numbers to write home about" these days. He knows that, too. Or if he doesn't, he shouldn't have his job.

The poll in question has less to do with the candidates' actual religion than their public image as faithful people. Barack Obama has been in the national spotlight for four years shaping a religious narrative for himself. Sarah Palin has been known to most people for about two months, and to the extent that people know her faith tradition, they think it's batshit crazy. Can you blame them?
Wank, wank, wank. If Mattingly held himself to his own standards, he'd wonder why the media don't "get" religion.

Either Pastor Dan didn't get his bottle of milk yesterday morning or he lost his pacifier... in either case he clearly didn't read the actual post that Mattingly referenced to UCCtruths. The post by Pastor Ted Weis was about the 40 years of decline within the mainline church and which quoted Dr. David Greenhaw, President of Eden Theological Seminary. The mainline has been in decline and it has nothing to do with UCCtruths being "knee-jerk opponents of the national UCC".

I guess if we aren't all drinking the same punch, we can't be on Pastor Dan's 'A' list. Boo hoo.

It's Not a Matter of "Criticizing" Israel

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:04:00 +0000

In a nutshell, here is the problem with mainline Protestant narrative about the Arab-Israeli conflict:

At the center of the mainline Protestant narrative about the Arab-Israeli conflict is a very simple assertion: Israel is in control of and responsible for the hostility directed at it by its adversaries in the Middle East. The story is told in various ways, but ultimately Israel is portrayed as having the ability and the obligation to bring a unilateral end to the Arab-Israeli conflict through a magical combination of concessions, withdrawals and peace offers that will mollify nations, groups and individuals that worked to prevent Israel’s creation in 1948 and have sought its destruction since then.

This narrative, while comforting, denies the fundamental nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel cannot control the enmity directed at it and the conflict will come to an end when religious and political leaders that govern the nations in the Middle East choose peace and stop supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as they attack Israel. The fact that these leaders have not chosen peace challenges deeply held mainline beliefs about the perfectibility of human nature and the ability of mainline churches to influence events in the Middle East. But the fact remains peace will come to the region when Arab and Muslim leaders in the region choose peace and not a moment before.

To affirm their brittle and distorted peacemaking narrative, activists, leaders and staffers from these churches and their allies in the Middle East have produced materials related to the conflict that downplay Muslim and Arab hostility toward Israel and Jews in the Middle East and have portrayed the Israeli people and their government as psychologically and spiritually unable to make peace with their neighbors. To buttress their portrayal of Jews as a people who cannot be trusted with self-determination, mainline activists, leaders and commentators enlist the help of Israeli and American Jews whose unreasonable denunciations of Israel have gotten very little traction in Israel, but who enjoy substantial support from audiences in Europe and the United States who exhibit a persistent and unnatural appetite for stories of Jews behaving badly. Mainline activists, leaders, and staffers also invoke Christian Zionist support for Israel in a manner that short-circuits honest discussion about the underlying causes and impacts of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

At times, these activists, leaders, commentators and their allies in the Middle East resort to scripture to portray Jewish sovereignty as a violation of the boundaries set for the Jewish people by the New Testament and Israeli use of force as a cosmological affront to the Christian nomos and Israelis as enemies of God.

Mainline materials about the Arab-Israeli distort history, judge Israeli behavior against a utopian standard of conduct while at the same time denying Israel’s adversaries of moral agency. The overall impact of this narrative is to render Arab and Muslim violence as unremarkable and Israeli use of force as the root of the conflict.

The worst part about this narrative is that it is a beast that needs to be fed with stories of Jews behaving badly. And sadly enough, there are all too many people who are willing to feed this beast.

The Gospel is a living-giving narrative. It strengthens us. We feed on it. It does not feed on us. The story we tell about the Arab-Israeli conflict is a lethal and ravenous narrative. It feeds on us. It demonizes Israel, infantilizes the Palestinians and diminishes our ability to confess to the reality of the living God.

"Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a person." -- Mark 15:10-11

Guess who is not coming to dinner

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:52:00 +0000

United Church of Christ President John Thomas has declined an invitation to join other religious leaders meeting with the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. From UCC.org:

This evening, September 25, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will meet with religious leaders at a dinner in New York. The event is co-sponsored by the Mennonite Central Committee, the American Friends Service Committee, the Quaker United Nations Office, the World Conference on Religions for Peace, and the World Council of Churches. While a member of Religions for Peace, the United Church of Christ is not active in its participation. We are, of course, a very active member communion of the World Council of Churches.

I was invited to the dinner but have declined. In previous public statements I have objected strongly to the rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad, rhetoric regarding the State of Israel and the historicity of the Holocaust that is deeply disturbing to all who believe in Israel's right to exist and who acknowledge the on-going pain that the Holocaust and its memory still evokes. While the organizers of this event certainly hope to raise their concern over this rhetoric with President Ahmadinejad, I am not convinced this will be effective. To the contrary, I fear the occasion can and will be used by President Ahmadinejad to claim legitimacy and support for himself by an association with respected United States religious leaders. I respect the sponsoring organizations' intent for dialogue, but fear that the more likely outcome is sowing confusion and disappointment among our own members and, in particular, the American Jewish community.

This is a surprising but welcome gesture by Thomas who has been widely criticized by the Jewish community in the past for statements and actions he has made regarding Israel.

The UCC's Justice and Peace Action Network also made statements in the past that appeared to support Iran's false claims that it would not enrich uranium while the U.S. was pushing for greater measures of accountability. From a 2005 UCC Justice and Peace Action Network alert:

The government of Iran has already submitted to the International Atomic Energy gency protocol and has opened up its facilities to international inspectors. In addition, Iran signed an agreement with Britain, France and Germany that it would stop developing uranium enrichment facilities.

Thomas should be praised for his decision to not attend the dinner this evening. While this is a clear sign that he does take the opinions of the Jewish community seriously, there is much more work that needs be done.

When UCC ministers roar

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:29:00 +0000

The great thing about this political season is that it brings out the worst in some clergy - especially within the United Church of Christ. Here are a couple of classic comments from UCC clergy this week...

"I am deeply concerned about single-issue, anti-abortion voters. I consider them immoral."
-Rev. Willis E. Elliott as posted at the Washington Post "On Faith"

For me, my concern isn't about the abortion debate, it's about clergy essentially telling people how to vote. Stupid comments like this are no better than Catholic Bishops telling their parishoners about the morality of their voting decisions.

This one is pretty good too...

"I am trying to understand why America thinks it's okay for a woman to go to four or five colleges before she got her bachelor's degree to compete with a black man who went to Harvard and graduated at the top of his class"
-Rev. Dr. Susan K. Smith, Advent United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio, preaching at Howard University

The elitism in this is actually pretty funny. By her standard, Abraham Lincoln would not have been qualified to run for President. And what's the message in this to the women who struggle to go to college and have to bounce around to different schools to complete their degrees? According to this Yale grad, only Ivy Leaguers should run for public office I guess.

But she didn't stop there... regarding Obama not referencing MLK during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:

"On the day he accepted the presidential nomination, he could have at least said Martin Luther King's name"

I guess this is the "sacred conversation on race" I've been missing.

Guest Post: The Limits of (International) Law

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:42:00 +0000

By Dexter Van Zile

Note: This is a much briefer entry than what I have posted previously. I offer the following arguments to spark debate. As time allows, I will provide more detail and narrative to the argument I make below. I am confident that many readers of UCCtruths will understand the underlying truth of the arguments I offer below and in some instances will be able to fill in the blanks on their own.

1. Mainline Protestant peace activists and church leaders who are willing to subject Christian Scriptures to pretty intense hermeneutics invoke international law as if it were inerrant, without assessing whether or not the rulings they invoke are just or fair. When it comes to international law, mainline peace activists and church leaders are fundamentalists.

2. Mainline Protestants know that appeals to law are not by themselves decisive for Christians. Slavery was legal in the Old South where the law deprived Africans of their status as human beings. German law allowed for Jews to be stripped of their citizenship and of their possessions and shipped off to death camps.

3. Mainline Protestant peace activists and leaders who regard nation states with great suspicion have portrayed the system of international law -- created by nation states -- as sacrosanct, inerrant, and a reliable judge of Israeli behavior.

4. It is not. For the past few decades, international law has been used to give Arab terrorists and tyrants the pretext and territory they have used to attack Israeli citizens.

5. In previous historical eras, national laws have been used to deprive people of their God-given rights. (See #2.) In the current historical era, international law has been used to deprive the Jewish state and the Jews who live in it of their right to self-defense.

6. Jews, like all other peoples, have a God-given right to defend themselves as individuals and as a group. This right cannot be taken away from them by the injust, discriminatory and biased application of the principles of international law.

7. Mainline peace activists and church leaders have assisted in the sustained effort to deprive Israel of its rights in the community of nations in a number of ways including the reckless invocation of unjust rulings and legal opinions against the Jewish state.

8. Mainline peace activists and church leaders should abandon the prosecutorial demeanor and attitude they have exhibited toward Israel and the licentious attitude they have exhbited toward Arab leaders in the Middle East.

Making adoption a priority

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:25:00 +0000

A friend just turned me on to an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal last month regarding new initiatives to promote adoptions of children at risk including orphans. As many of the regulars to the site know, I was adopted as an infant through the United Church of Christ affiliated Crossroad Ft. Wayne Childrens Home and I'm a strong advocate for adoption programs. While Crossroad is no longer handling adoptions, there is clearly an opportunity for our denomination to find new ways of serving the most vulnerable people in our society.

The WSJ article politicizes the issue more than I care for, but there are some important issues that are raised. I'm not a fan of 'Focus on the Family' and I don't have any respect for James Dobson's effort to politicize religion, but they are 100% right about the role faith commuities should play with regards to adoption. From the WSJ:

The theme was "You Are God's Plan for the Orphan," which represents something of a shift, says Kelly Rosati, who oversees Focus on the Family's adoption and orphan-care division and is the mother of four adopted children. "The traditional way of viewing adoption was something you considered if you were facing infertility." You could call it God's Plan B for the Couple. But now, according to Ms. Rosati, "the commitment to adoption is part of a holistic sanctity-of-human-life ethic."

This fall, Focus on the Family (whose leader, James Dobson, has been slowly warming to Sen. McCain) will be launching a different sort of adoption campaign. In cooperation with the state of Colorado, where the Christian organization is based, it will be shining its media spotlight on the 127,000 children in the U.S. who are considered unadoptable -- kids, typically over the age of 8, who are languishing in foster care. Many are racial minorities.

Did you know that there were 127,000 kids in our country that are "unadoptable"? What is your church doing about this? What is our denomionation doing about this? Do we care about 'the least of these' only when it's politically convenient or are we really committed?

It's official: We're nuts

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:07:00 +0000

This could explain a great deal about our denomination. From the Wall Street Journal:

The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?

The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.

Even among Christians, there were disparities. While 36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama's former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin's former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.

This would explain John Dorhauer's crazy conspiracy theory, our denomination's support for the anti-Semitic organization Sabeel and our denomination's support for convicted terrorists. Simply put, a third of us will believe just about anything.

Guest Post: A Warning, Not a Primer

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:28:00 +0000

By Dexter Van Zile

In 1974, New Seabury Press published Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism, by Rosemary Radford Ruether. In this book, Ruether offered a thoroughgoing critique of the New Testament and of the writings of the early church fathers that offered a distorted and inaccurate view of Judaism and Jews to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian church. Ruether noted a troubling aspect of Christian writings: the most powerful expressions of Christ’s divinity and redeeming power were often accompanied by ugly denunciations of Jews. Christianity’s assertions of Christ’s divinity, status as the messiah, and expectations of redemption were so deeply interwoven with enmity toward the Jews that Ruether asked:

Is it possible to purge Christianity of anti-Judaism without at the same time pulling up Christian faith? Is it possible to say “Jesus is Messiah” without, implicitly or explicitly, saying at the same time “and the Jews be damned”?

The interweaving of anti-Jewish polemic with assertions of Jesus’ redemptive power was, according to Ruether, an effort to counter two threats to the early Christian faith: Jewish rejection of Jesus as the messiah and the fact that the world had remained much as it was, rife with conflict and misery even after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The presence of suffering in the world after Christ’s resurrection contradicted a central tenet of Christianity – that Christ had conquered sin and death. Christian writers countered these threats by spiritualizing the redemption Christ brought to the world, claiming this spirituality for the church, and by projecting human failings onto the Jewish people. According to Ruether, the narrative offered by Christian writers and commentators portrays Judaism and its adherents as apostate from God, guilty of violating all the rules that had been handed down to them in their Torah, and then stubborn in their insistence on following these rules once they had been superseded by Jesus Christ, whom they murdered. Jews were portrayed as a carnal people while Christianity and its adherents are portrayed as “spiritual.” Jews were portrayed as unable to understand their own scriptures; Christians are portrayed as having the true understanding of how Jews should interpret their scriptures and ultimately how they should behave. According to Ruether, Jewish scriptures which “contain a record of Jewish self-criticism” were transformed by Christian writers “into a remorseless denunciation of the Jews, while the Church, in turn is presented as totally perfect and loses the prophetic tradition of self-criticism.”

Gregory Baum, a Catholic theologian who wrote the introduction to Ruether’s book, put it concisely when he wrote:

The Church made the Jewish people a symbol of unredeemed humanity; it painted a picture of the Jews as a blind, stubborn, carnal and perverse people, an image that was fundamental in Hitler’s choice of the Jews as the scapegoat.

Baum’s introduction was remarkable in that he had previously argued “the anti-Jewish trends in Christianity were peripheral and accidental, and that it would consequently be fairly easy to purify the preaching of the church from anti-Jewish bias.” After reading Ruether’s work, however, Baum admitted that anti-Jewish trends were not a recent development in Christianity and that “they were, almost from the beginning, linked to the Church’s proclamation of the Jesus as the Christ.” Baum proclaimed that “If the Church wants to clear itself of the anti-Jewish trends built into its teaching, a few marginal correctives will not do. It must examine the very center of its proclamation and reinterpret the meaning of the gospel for our times.”

Ruether’s book prefigured another magisterial and influential text written two decades later – Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll who popularized an insight that had been circulating in academic and theological circles for years: Christian teachings regarding the Jewish people were a necessary and contributing factor to the destruction of the Jewish people in Europe during the 1940s and that Christians needed to come up with new ways to interpret their scripture. To be sure, Ruether was not the first commentator to raise these issues, but she was one of the most fearless and thoroughgoing. In response to the issues raised by Ruether and other theologians, several liberal Protestant denominations in the United States issued statements of contrition regarding Christian teachings about the Jewish people, and promised to fight against anti-Semitism in the future. In their own ways, they recapitulated what the Roman Catholic Church had stated to the world in its document Nostra Aetate issued in 1965 – in light of the Holocaust, Christians were obligated to find new ways to affirm their faith without demonizing Jews.

In light of the work of Ruether and others, liberal Catholics and Protestants began to reinterpret and in some instances, reject the New Testament’s anti-Judaism. For example, in 2004, Westminster John Knox Press published Preaching the Gospels Without Blaming the Jews: A Lectionary Commentary written by Ronald J. Allen and Clark M. Williamson. In this book, Allen and Williamson (who invoke Ruether in their introduction) state explicitly that Gospel polemic against Jews and their leaders should be analyzed, and when necessary, rejected. For instance, the authors assert that Matthew’s Gospel inserted the presence of Pharisees and scribes into the narrative of Christ’s baptism in the Jordan river “so that John can engage in name-calling: ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?’” The authors tell us that “after the Holocaust, preachers should speak against Matthew’s polemic.”

The great irony is that in the years since the publication of Ruether’s book, Christian peace activists have deployed many of the same polemical devices against modern Israel that Ruether documented in Faith and Fratricide. Progressive Christianity’s most powerful calls for peace and liberation are accompanied by ugly polemics that portray Israel and its supporters as worthy of contempt and justify Israel’s banishment from the community of nations. Many peace activists portray themselves as inheriting and embodying the ultimate truths of the Christian religion, while Israel and its supporters are portrayed as embodying all of the worst characteristics of human nature, organized religion, the international system and ultimately as if they are enemies of God, obstructing God’s plan for a peaceful world (in a manner eerily similar to what some Christian Zionists say about those who oppose Israel.)

Adam Gregerman, Ph.D., documented the problem in an article (“Old Wine in New Bottles: Liberation Theology and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”) published in the Summber-Fall 2004 edition Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Using Faith and Fratricide as a map of Christian anti-Jewish polemic, Gregerman details how modern Christian writers – including Ruether herself – had “perpetuated Christian stereotypes and images of Jews, even as many churches are rejecting anti-Jewish teachings.” He reported how Christian commentators “use the Jews’ sacred texts against them and thereby turn political disagreements into religious indictments.” Gregerman is particularly forceful when he describes how “the most malevolent enemies of Jesus and God and even of ancient Israel are deployed as symbols of Jews by liberation theologians, with no attention to the long history of Christian anti-Judaism, which used precisely these symbols and this type of polemic.

Anglican Priest Naim Ateek founder of Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, headquartered in Jerusalem features prominently in Gregerman’s piece. Using liberation theology as its framework, Sabeel calls for a one-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the form of “One state for two nations and three religions.” In addition to its support for a one-state solution, Sabeel is well known for its use of anti-Judaic polemic from the New Testament to portray the modern state of Israel as a cosmological affront to Christian sensibilities. For example, in 2005 Sabeel issued a liturgy titled “The Contemporary Stations of the Cross” that equates Israel’s founding with Jesus’ death sentence and the construction of a security barrier with His death on the cross. With these comparisons, Sabeel transforms two actions taken to achieve Jewish safety in the face of unrelenting violence into two reminders of Christ’s judicial and ritual murder – at the hands of the Jews, of course. This document, published after Gregerman’s article appeared in print, underscores his assertion that critiques motivated by liberation theology

… lead to a demonization of the Jews. These writings do not illuminate the key issues in the conflict and offer little by way of guidance for those on all sides who seek a just solution. As such, liberation theology impedes rather than fosters any serious attempt at understanding or ending the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Gregerman’s article raises an important question for Christian peace activists – similar to the one Ruether asked in 1974: Is it possible for Christian peace activists and mainline churches to assert “peace is possible” without implicitly, or explicitly, saying in one way or another “and Israel be damned”? The willingness of mainline peace activists and church leaders (particularly in the UCC and the Episcopal Church) to tolerate the use of Sabeel’s angry polemic is troublesome, but the problems do not stop there.

Another problem is the manner in which these activists and leaders have adopted the group’s unrealistic prescription for ending the conflict – “End the occupation and the violence will end.” This mantra, put forth by Dick Toll, former chair of the Friends of Sabeel North America in 2005, roots the continued existence of the Arab-Israeli conflict in Israeli policies and takes no account of the enmity toward Jews and Israel expressed by religious political leaders throughout the Middle East. And like the predictions of the world’s imminent redemption put forth by Jesus’ early followers, Sabeel’s “end-the-occupation-and-the-violence-will-end” narrative has proven to be a disappointment. Israel has been attacked from every bit of territory from which it has withdrawn since the Oslo Accords.

This is a point I’ve made before – numerous times – but one that bears repeating. Between 2000 and 2004, Israel was attacked by suicide bombers from the West Bank, with many of the attacks originating from towns from which Israel withdrew its soldiers in the 1990s. In 2006, Israel was attacked by Hamas from the Gaza Strip -- from which it withdrew in 2005. Also in 2006, Israel was attacked from Lebanon, from which it withdrew in 2000, by Hezbollah.

If the safety of your family was at stake, would you still be willing to bet its well-being on the “end-the-occupation-and-the-violence-will-end” narrative after your country was attacked from territory from which it withdrew?

I wouldn’t.

Neither would most of the people in mainline churches; those who would place this bet have no right to expect Israelis to do so after the events of the past few years.

On this score, mainline peace activists and the leaders of our churches have done a very poor job of conveying the hopelessness felt after the Second Intifada by well-meaning, peace-loving Israeli Jews, who if by some reversal of fate were Christians living in the U.S. (yes, I know it’s a bizarre scenario – but stay with me) would likely find themselves at home in our churches by virtue of their temperament and politics.

After the collapse of the Camp David Process, peace-loving Israelis were devastated and many of them laid the blame squarely on the Arab inability to accept Israel’s right to exist. Hirsh Goodman had this to say at the height of the Second Intifada in 2002: “I supported Oslo. I supported talking with Arafat. The greatest disappointment was to discover that despite everything I've believed, everything I've promulgated, that [expletive] never gave up terror.” (We never saw that quote in any background documents prepared by the activists and church staffers now did we?)

Goodman was not the only peace activist to take a different attitude after the Second Intifada. This is how a liberal pro-peace Israeli Jew (who will be left nameless) responded to the “Tear Down the Wall” resolution passed by the United Church of Christ in 2005: “When I hear churches in the U.S. tell us to tear down the wall, it makes me want to build another one right behind it.”

Despite all this, mainline church leaders and peace activists clung to their discredited narrative by denying the concessions weren’t any good (Barak’s “generous offer” was no such thing), or asserting that Sharon’s withdrawal was meaningless (“Gaza is still an open air prison!”) or that the Security Barrier caused and did not prevent Palestinian violence (“Tear Down the Wall!”).

Any suggestion that the peace and justice activists are motivated by a desire to analyze and confront the underlying causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict misses the point. These activists are telling a story, not making peace. They are creating a mythology about the conflict that couples a relentless bill of particulars against Israel with a licentious hagiography that portrays Israel’s adversaries as innocent of all wrong. The goal of this myth is to allow adherents of the “end-the-occupation-and-the-violence-will-end narrative” to remain devoted to their ersatz parousia, and to blame its delay on Israel.

Once again, Jews are defamed when the millennial hopes of Christians are disappointed. One way or another, Christians always seem to come back to their obsession with Jewish people – this time through the modern state of Israel. The only question is how this obsession will manifest itself – through a process of sacralization or demonization. Much of what passes for Christian debate over the Arab-Israeli conflict is an exchange of polemics between those who sacralize the modern state of Israel and those who demonize it. One characteristic the opposing parties share is a belief that the modern state of Israel will play a central role in their respective salvation schemes.

The similarity between these two schemes became obvious to me while arguing with a peace activist at the UCC General Synod in 2005. During the discussion, I pointed out that mainline resolutions always seem to be making demands of Israel while making very few demands of the Palestinians. In response, the activist said “I want Israel to usher in a new era!”

To be fair, the activist was speaking in historical and not eschatological terms, but the millennial overtone was unmistakable. Israel was expected to bring about a new reality in the Middle East through self-reform, sacrifice and risk-taking. Any expectations the activist had of Israel’s adversaries were unstated. This was not an unusual, isolated slip-of-the-tongue by an individual activist but emblematic central aspect of the Christian peacemaking agenda in regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In his address to the Sabeel conference at Old South Church in Boston in October 2007 Archbishop Desmond Tutu challenged Jews to struggle with their conscience over Israeli policies and to “be on the side of the God who revealed a soft spot in his heart for the widow, the orphan and the alien.” He cautioned Jews to not fight against the God, their God who hears the cry of the oppressed, who sees their anguish and who will always come down to deliver them.” He targeted this cri de coeur exclusively at Jews leaving any expectations he may have had of the Palestinian unspoken. Yes, Archbishop Tutu does condemn “acts of terrorism by whoever they are committed,” but when it comes to naming the perpetrators of misdeeds, he names only the Jewish people and their institutions.

It should be noted, however, that Tutu has recently called on the United Nations to “show the same concern for protecting Israelis from Palestinian attacks as it does for Palestinian suffering under Israeli occupation” and even demanded that Hamas “bring an end to the launching of rockets against civilians in Israel.” These proclamations are undercut however by his suggestion, based on tenuous proof, that Israel perpetrated a war crime by killing civilians in a rocket attack on Bet Hanoun in 2006 and by his assertion that the Palestinians are paying the price for Western guilt over the Holocaust. The 19 Gazans who were killed and the additional 50 who were injured as a result of the rocket attack on Bet Hanoun Nov. 8, 2006 were not paying the price for the Holocaust, but were victims of Palestinians rocket teams who use dense urban neighborhoods as their hiding places.

Were these deaths a tragedy? Absolutely. Does Israel share responsibility for their death? Yes, and most Israelis will say so. But the fundamental reality is this: Terrorists who attack civilians while hiding behind civilians guarantee civilian casualties. The math is pretty simple: No rockets into Israel, no rockets into Gaza. What Israelis regard as a tragedy that brings shame on the Jewish state – the death of innocent civilians – is the chosen and preferred strategy of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Desmond Tutu knows this. We all know this. And yet mainline peace activists pretend otherwise. The fact that Archbishop Tutu’s lopsided criticism marks an improvement in how he speaks about the Arab-Israeli conflict shows just how bad things are.

Lopsided demands and criticism of Israel are, along with the ugly, demonizing polemic detailed by Gregerman, another salient aspect of Sabeel's reckless application of liberation theology to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sabeel’s recklessness is evident in the licentious manner with which it uses the Exodus narrative as a framework for the Arab-Israeli conflict. Apparently, Sabeel’s version of ancient Israel’s story of liberation ends with Exodus. It does not include the rest of the Pentateuch which details how God starts holding ancient Israelites accountable – even during their time in the wilderness. Dennis T. Olson highlights this issue in his commentary on Numbers published by Westminster John Knox Press in 1996. He writes:

Before Sinai, Israel was like a newly adopted child who did not yet know the
rules of the household. God, the divine Parent, bent over backwards to satisfy
the legitimate needs of an Israel immediately out of Egypt. But by the time we
reach Numbers, the people of Israel know their responsibilities in the law and
the commandments. Israel must take responsibility and is answerable for its
relationship to God. (Page 63)

In plain language this means that at some point, the Palestinians need to start accepting responsibility for the problems they have created, quit attacking Israel from territory from which it has withdrawn and get on with building their future. If one were to include Numbers in the liberationist canon (which apparently Sabeel does not) Arafat’s failure to take the deals offered to him at Camp David and Taba in 2000/2001 could be compared to the loss of nerve exhibited by the ancient Israelites when the Promised Land was presented to them chapter 13. Arafat spied out the future, was overcome with fear at the responsibility that would come with statehood and turned the offer down, thereby consigning his people to another 40 years of wandering in the wilderness without a state.

Of course, at a certain point comparisons like this can become ludicrous, but not any more ludicrous than using a Christian theology of liberation as a template for a national movement controlled by Arab political and religious leaders who have used liberation as a synonym for the destruction of Israel for the past 60 years. The fact is, Sabeel’s liberation theology has little if any impact on Palestinian society. Yes, Rev. Dr. Ateek has condemned suicide bombing – in English to Christians in the U.S. and Europe – and yes, there are times when Sabeel does offer muted criticism of Palestinian and Arab leaders, but no where does this criticism even approach the ferocity with which it demonizes Israel. In Sabeel’s quarterly newsletter Cornerstone (published in English), Israel is routinely condemned while Palestinian mistakes are almost ignored altogether.

If mainline peace activists and church leaders such were truly intent on promoting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, they would call both sides to account for the choices they have made. That is not what they have done. Instead, they have followed Sabeel’s example of blaming portraying Israel as powerful enough to bring a unilateral end to the conflict and by portraying the Palestinians as innocent sufferers.

Just as early Christians used a caricature of Jews and Judaism to cope with the continued existence of suffering, sin and death after Christ’s resurrection, modern-day Christian peace activists use a caricature of modern Israel to cope with their failure of the story they have told to describe, explain and predict events in Middle East. Despite all their efforts, despite all their promises of peace, the world remains much as it has been for a long time – dangerous, unpredictable, frightening and a death-dealing challenge to our faith. Instead of acknowledging that their made-to-order parousia did not arrive and searching for a more secure foundation for their faith, adherents of this failed narrative have interwoven anti-Jewish polemic into their Gospel of Peace, falling back into the trap Ruether warned Christians about in 1974.

Mainline peace activists need to remember that Faith and Fratricide was written as a warning, not a primer.

Out of the Mouths of Two Witnesses: Guest Post By Dexter Van Zile

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:15:00 +0000

Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good.
3 John : 1:11

For people who bill themselves as committed to non-violence and reconciliation, the so-called peace and justice activists who inhabit the progressive wing of Protestantism in the U.S. ("mainline churches") sure have targeted Israel with a lot of demonizing rhetoric in the past few years. They have also tolerated, and in some instances, defended the use of explicitly anti-Jewish themes from their allies in both the Middle East and the U.S., raising the question of whether these activists are as committed to "peacemaking" as they say they are.

For example, proponents of divestment in the United Methodist Church, defended Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, an Anglican priest in Jerusalem with a history of using deicide imagery from the New Testament in reference to Israel, arguing that "If Israel is concerned about statements that point out its actions against Palestinians, it should stop those actions rather than trying to silence those who tell the world about them." In other words, these UMC "peacemakers" assert that as soon as Israel stops mistreating the Palestinians, Rev. Ateek and the group he founded, Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, will back off from his portrayal of Israel as a crucifying nation. The idea that depicting the Jewish state as re-enacting the crime of Christ's murder (and thus affirming its status as enemy of God), does not make for "peace" is lost on activists who seem more interested in generating contempt for Israel and it supporters than they are in promoting peace and reconciliation.

The implicit message offered by mainline peace and justice activists is that Israel – which has been subject to attack by its neighbors virtually every year of its existence – is not entitled to the sympathy or support from right-minded people in the U.S. and that maybe the world would be better off if the Jewish nation were banished from the community of nations and ultimately dismantled. This message (which is offered explicitly by the Mennonite Central Committee) is expressed in the mainline peacemaking narrative that portrays Jewish sovereignty – not the violence and rhetoric used to undermine it – as the ultimate source of suffering in the Holy Land.

The fact that the leaders and legislative bodies of these churches have, to varying degrees, embraced this anti-Zionist narrative and keep Israel's sins – real and imagined – in their minds with greater force and vividness than two successive genocides in Sudan, China's terrible record of human rights, and the mistreatment of women in Muslim regimes throughout the Middle East, speaks volumes about the influence these activists enjoy within their churches.

The anti-Zionist narrative embraced by mainline churches became readily apparent in 2004 when the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) approved a divestment resolution that called on the denomination’s Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) to "initiate a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel." In addition to singling Israel out as a target for divestment, the resolution also charged that the occupation had "proven to be at the root of evil acts committed against innocent people on both sides of the conflict."

This resolution, passed with the support of the PC(USA)’s Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, which vets "peacemaking" overtures passed by the General Assembly, sparked outrage from Rabbis for Human Rights, a group that promotes Palestinian rights and statehood to condemn the PC(USA) in a July 2004 letter which stated "Your simplistic moral declaration is inaccurate and inadequate to explain the situation in all its tragic moral complexity."

RHR also accused the PC(USA) of ignoring "the homicidal ideologies that have so sadly taken hold among [Israel’s] Palestinian neighbors," and said the resolution averted "its eyes from the attempts to destroy our country that transcend the Occupation and precede it by decades."

In 2005, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ (UCC), passed a divestment resolution that targeted Israel and a "Tear Down the Wall Resolution," which called on Israel to take down the security barrier, without asking the Palestinians to stop the terror attacks that prompted its construction. The resolution, which was also passed by the Disciples of Christ, described Palestinian suffering in exquisite detail, but made little mention of the suffering experienced by the Israelis, or of the Palestinian violence that caused this suffering.

In addition to this, in 2003 the UCC’s publishing house, Pilgrim Press, published Whose Land? Whose Promise? This book, filled as it is with factual errors and hostile anti-Jewish interpretations of scripture would make any self-respecting church official truly concerned about Christian-Jewish relations blanch. One outrageous example on page of 176, Rev. Dr. Gary Burge interprets John 15:6 (a passage in which Jesus states "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned") as meaning:

The people of Israel cannot claim to be planted as vines in the land; they
cannot be rooted in the vineyard unless they are first grafted into Jesus.
Branches that attempt living in the land, the vineyard, which refuse to be
attached to Jesus will be cast out and burned. (Emphasis added.)

If you do not think that this is outrageous, just ask yourself what the response would be if Pilgrim Press published a book about gay rights that invoked Leviticus 20:13 (which calls for the execution of homosexuals) as providing insight about what rights should be accorded to gays and lesbians living in the U.S. The book would spark outrage and it would be branded as a text of terror. But Rev. Dr. Burge’s book was well-received in both the evangelical and mainline community – a crossover success. Apparently, Pilgrim Press is going to publish a second edition – the book sells. It just goes to show that indeed, there is money to be made and status to be achieved by trafficking in ugly anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist polemic.

The Episcopal Church, which historically has been the most prestigious mainline church in the U.S., has not passed the ugly anti-Israel resolutions passed by the UCC and the PC(USA). Nevertheless, anti-Zionism runs deep in this denomination. It has provided financial and logistical support to Sabeel, the previously mentioned group that traffics in anti-Jewish polemic and portrays the Arab-Israeli conflict as solely a consequence of Israeli policies. In 2007 the Episcopal Peace Fellowship gave Sabeel’s founder, Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, a "peacemaking award."

Sadly, the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori seems to have adapted Sabeel’s rhetorical techniques to suit her own purposes. The Episcopal Church News Service coverage of her walk through Jerusalem on Good Friday in 2008 included the following passage:

"I was struck at the way we carried on through the normal activities of the
city, crossing busy streets, walking past garbage waiting for pick up, past
people who alternately stared at us, greeted us warmly, or ignored us," said
Jefferts Schori. "This morning we were spat on by a young Jewish
man. How similar must have been Jesus' journeys the last week of his
life." (Emphasis added. One version of the article that originally
included this passage is available here, but it
no longer includes any reference to the young Jewish man spitting on the Bishop,
but believe me, it was there.)

Yes, it was wrong, disgusting and abhorrent for the young Jewish man to spit on an Episcopal Bishop, but for Bishop Jefferts Schori, a privileged Protestant from the U.S. with an entourage that includes her own press officer, to compare herself to Jesus Christ on his way to the Cross is emblematic of just how self-absorbed and self-congratulatory mainline Protestants can get when they go to the Holy Land. Those with eyes to see will regard Bishop Schori’s star turn in the Holy Land for what it is – a sad example of moral obtuseness that responsible Christians should not follow.

To be clear, the Episcopal Church has acknowledged the presence of anti-Semitism in the Middle East. In a single-spaced, 16-page booklet issued by the church’s committee on Socially Responsible Investment, there is one bland sentence about the issue. "The SRI Committee also notes examples of hostility and anti-Semitism of certain Arab states in the region against the state of Israel."

With the detached and dispassionate tone the SRI committee uses to describe antisemitism in the Middle East, it sounds like a public health problem that can be fixed with a few vaccine shipments, some wide-spectrum antibiotics and maybe some mosquito netting. Compare this language with an article Rev. Canon Brian Grieves, director of the Episcopal Church’s "Peace and Justice" Ministries, wrote in 2005 about the impact of the security barrier on Palestinians. In the article, he quotes Episcopalian Michele Spike as follows:

"The Wall invades Palestinian fields, dividing grazing lands – including the
valley of the shepherds at Bethlehem – and, at times, encircling Palestinian
cities." (Emphasis added.)

The Israeli-built security barrier ("Wall") invades, divides and encircles. Antisemitism, on the other hand, is treated as a found object with no life of its own – an artifact "noted" by the SRI committee. With language like this, Arabs who embrace and espouse anti-Semitism are denied agency or any responsibility , but the security barrier’s impact is described in much more expressive terms that make it clear what the author thinks the Israelis are really about – stealing land and placing the Palestinians under siege. Read the rest of the article and you will find no first-hand description of terror attacks against Israelis, just a bland report that "The Israeli government maintains the barrier is built to provide security to Israel." (This under a subheading "Security Issues.")

To be sure, the difference in tone can be explained in part by the different purposes of the two documents – one a journalistic screed by Rev. Canon Brian Grieves, and the other a more business-like document detailing a committee’s deliberations. Nevertheless, the scant public speech in the Episcopalian Church about Arab violence and enmity to Jews and their state is governed by the tone of the SRI document – restrained and scholarly. But when it comes time to talk about Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians, Episcopalian condemnations are filled with active verbs and theological allusions that point out how badly Israeli policies contradict idealized visions of the Holy Land.

The same allusions and even more powerful verbs could be used to highlight hostility and violence toward Jews in the Middle East, but for the most part, these active verbs and Biblical allusions just are not present in the public speech of any mainline church regarding Arab and Muslim hostility toward Jews in the Middle East. (Why? Probably for the same reason that the Barmen Declaration – a ringing a denunciation of Nazi ideology affirmed by Christians in Germany in 1934 – made no reference whatsoever to one of Nazism’s most salient and lethal characteristics – its antisemitism.)

The United Methodist Church did not pass a divestment resolution targeting Israel at its 2008 General Conference, but it did pass two other resolutions (one condemning Israel as a violator of international law and another calling for a study of the denomination’s investments in among other places, the Middle East) which, taken together, set the stage for more divestment resolutions at the next General Conference in 2012.

And prior to passing these resolutions, the UMC published a mission study by one of its staffers, Rev. Stephen Goldstein that portrayed the Israelis as too damaged to be trusted with self-determination, and a children’s story that portrays Israeli security checkpoints as the cause, not the result, of Palestinian violence. (Predictably, the children’s story describes Israeli suffering in diffuse and abstract terms and Palestinian suffering in concrete and experiential terms.)

The Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) has problems of its own to address. At its 2005 Churchwide Assembly in Florida, the denomination played a video on the hotel’s cable system that used ominous images of Israeli checkpoints to raise funds for Augustus Victoria Hospital run by the Lutheran World Federation. (Apparently, Israeli villainy sells!) At this assembly the denomination affirmed a "Peace Not Walls" campaign that placed the onus for ending the Arab-Israeli conflict on Israel.

In August, 2007 ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly passed a resolution that called on Lutherans to explore the feasibility of "refusing to buy products produced in Israeli settlements." In other words, two months after Hamas and Fatah gunmen battled it in the streets of Gaza, throwing one another off rooftops, ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly suggested that maybe it is a good idea to boycott settlers in the West Bank.

Then there was the ELCA organized event in Germany, where Bethlehem Mayor Victor Batarseh, testified against the security barrier built to stop terror attacks from the West Bank. Of course Batarseh, is going to condemn the security barrier. Batarseh, an American citizen, was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and was elected mayor of Bethlehem with the support of Hamas. (Fortunately, the denomination’s magazine The Lutheran, was honest enough to cover the concerns raised over the one-sided nature of the conference.)

Weak Affirmations

Invariably, the leaders, spokespeople and activists from these churches will loudly assert that they have not embraced an "anti-Zionist" narrative, and that in fact, they have explicitly and repeatedly affirmed Israel’s right to exist.

Not so fast.

Yes, these declarations have been made, but they are very rarely accompanied by any explanation as to why such an affirmation is necessary. Israel’s right to exist is not a settled issue in the Arab world where the refusal to accept Jewish sovereignty is rooted in part, in Muslim theology – a fact mainline churches are loath to acknowledge.

Moreover, mainline affirmations of Israel’s right to exist are undercut by the alliances these churches maintain with groups like the U.S. Committee to End the Occupation and Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, an organization whose leader, Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek has explicitly denied the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state.

All this, coupled with the willingness of these churches to publish materials that root the continued existence of the conflict in Jewish identity and psychology (The Methodist Mission Manual) and portray Israel’s creation as a violation of the boundaries set for the Jewish people by the New Testament (Whose Land? Whose Promise?), renders these affirmations meaningless because they do not have any effect on how the churches "talk" about the Arab-Israeli conflict. People who truly affirm Israel’s right to exist would talk honestly about the threats it faces. Mainline churches do not.

The upshot is this: The center of gravity of the mainline church’s prophetic voice is decidedly anti-Zionist. Yes, there are times when mainline leaders respond forcefully, for example, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says something outrageous, but when it comes to addressing the day-in and day-out violence between Israelis and Palestinians, Israel is condemned and the Palestinians are excused.

The Timing

The amazing thing about mainline anti-Zionism is that became more pronounced in the aftermath of the Second Intifada, when Israel most needed – and was most entitled to – support from liberal progressive churches in the U.S. The Second Intifada was a violent campaign of suicide terror attacks that erupted after the collapse of the Camp David negotiations held during 2000 where Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a state of their own that included all of Gaza and most of the West Bank. Israel made an offer, the Palestinian Authority refused and did not make a counter-offer. During the winter of 2000/01, the PA turned down the Clinton Parameters which would have given the Palestinians a state of their own on even better terms than that Barak offered during the summer of 2000.

In January 2001, Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan warned Yasir Arafat – who had turned down Barak’s offer at Camp David in 2000 – to embrace the Clinton Parameters, but was unsuccessful. "I hope you remember, sir, what I told you. If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy. This is going to be a crime." (The New Yorker, March 24, 2003).

Despite all this, these churches, under the influence of their various cadres of peace and justice activists, passed resolutions and issued publications that held Israel exclusively responsible for the violence of the Second Intifada. The end result was that attacks on Israeli civilians – which should have prompted horror among right-minded people in the U.S. – were understood in this churches to be regrettable but understandable acts of desperation by the Palestinians who wanted peace against the Israelis, who didn’t. In fact, the violence was perpetrated and tolerated by religious and political figures in Palestinian society unable to lead their societies without using Jew-hatred as a unifying cause.

Who is the Model?

To be sure, the polite and genteel anti-Zionism expressed by mainline churches looks almost benign when compared to the explicit anti-Semitism displayed at the UN Conference on Racism and Xenophobia that took place in Durban, South Africa in late August and early September of 2001. At this conference, Arab and Muslim extremists from the Middle East and their allies from the radical left in Europe and the U.S. were able to convince the gathered assembly to affirm an amalgam of ritualistic charges of genocide, racism and ethnic cleansing targeted at Israel. The ritualistic nature of these charges is demonstrated by a few facts: The population of Palestinians has quadrupled in the past 60 years, Israeli Arabs serve in the Knesset and make up nearly one-fifth of the country's population while Arab countries in the Middle East are effectively Judenrein.

These charges were only part of the craziness at Durban, where Jews were singularly denied the right to participate in the proceedings at the conference because they could not be "objective." Security officials told representatives of Jewish groups that their safety could not be guaranteed. Protesters carried signs stating that if Hitler had finished the job there were would be no state of Israel and no Palestinian suffering. During the conference a Jewish doctor was beat up by people wearing checkered keffiyehs – the symbol of the Palestinian cause – who said Jews were the cause of all the problems in the Middle East. Local Jewish leaders attributed the attack to the atmosphere at the UN Conference.

Ya think?

If you’re looking for mainline condemnations of what happened at Durban, good luck. One thing you will find, however, is a quote from Rev. Dr. Robert W. Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches chiding the Bush Administration’s decision to withdraw from the conference, asserting that it prejudged "the conference’s ultimate declaration… The US government made its point, but at an unfortunately heavy cost… In walking out the United States forfeited a critically important opportunity to address with courage the legacy, tenacity and toll of racism."

To be sure, the anti-Zionism expressed by mainline churches in the U.S. is not as virulent as what was on display at Durban, but this is cold comfort. By embracing a more polite form of the anti-Zionism modeled for them by their peace and justice activists, mainline churches that have explicitly condemned anti-Semitism became allies with groups that use anti-Zionism, not as a cover, but a vehicle for their anti-Semitism. One example of this phenomenon was a June 2007 Washington, D.C., rally organized by the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation. This rally, sponsored in part by the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church featured protesters carrying signs that read "F*&K Israel" with the "s" in Israel drawn to look like a Nazi swastika – a clear and undeniable expression of anti-Semitism. Other protesters carried signs that read "From the River to the Sea Palestine Will Be Free" – a clear and undeniable call for Israel's destruction.

The sad reality is this – these extremists at these are not modeling their behavior on the example set for them by mainline churches. It is the other way around. We are following the lead of the extremists.

That’s not the way it’s supposed to be.

The Second Witness

By aligning themselves with the extremist rhetoric of groups like the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation, and failing to denounce it afterwards, mainline churches became the second witness needed to initiate a public stoning under Biblical law:

On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses, he that is to die shall
be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one
witness. The hand of the witnesses shall first be against him to put him to
death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil
from the midst of you. (Deuteronomy 17:6-7) [The King James Version, which
apparently is much closer to the original Hebrew in this passage, has a much
more evocative opening to this passage: "At the mouth of two witnesses…"]

Deuteronomy, written as an attempt to constrain collective violence in a region and era when it was routinely practiced, understands that most of the people in a crowd lack the nerve to throw stones at fellow human beings, a point underscored by Jesus’ defense of the prostitute in the Gospel of John. The "first stone," French literary critic Rene Girard writes is "not purely rhetorical [because] it is the most difficult to throw."

Why is it the most difficult to throw? Because it is the only one without a
model. (I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, page 56).

By requiring a second witness to enact an execution, Deuteronomy attempts to deprive angry crowds of the model they need to initiate a stoning, just as Christ did when he issued the challenge "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to thrown a stone at her." (John 8:7) Mainline peace activists have facilitated a process that Deuteronomy tries to hinder and which Jesus tried to disrupt – demonization. And in so doing, they have served as an intermediary between explicitly anti-Semitic anti-Israel activists in the hard left and well-intentioned mainline Protestants who would be horrified by the enmity on display at the June 2007 protest. And in the process, these churches became indifferent to the hostility toward Israel expressed by extremists in the U.S. and the Middle East. And why shouldn’t they become inured?

Mainline peace and justice activists, many of whom had been to the Middle East, are not bothered by it, but regard their willingness to rub shoulders with people carrying "F*&K Israel" signs as a sign of their commitment to the cause – of peace. In the world view of these activists, hostility toward Jews, which had previously been taboo in mainline churches, has become an unremarkable and understandable, (albeit regrettable) aspect of the movement, excused by the notion that Israeli policies cause antisemitism. In other words, associating with groups and people that traffic in explicitly anti-Semitic calls for Israel’s destruction became part of the cost of "peacemaking" and anyway, the story goes, people will abandon their anti-Semitism as soon as Israel makes peace with its enemies.

And so the contagion spreads.

Wright Accused of Adultery

noreply@blogger.com (Living the Biblios) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:05:00 +0000

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

Years ago I was part of a large church in a major metropolis where the senior pastor was accused of adultery. It was a gut wrenching experience. For weeks, the leading newspaper had a hey-dey with the story. The congregation was devastated as hundreds left. And worst of all, the charges were found to be true.

So when news broke that controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright-- one of the UCC's best known preachers, emeritus pastor of the UCC's largest church, and the former minister of Barack Obama-- is being accused of adultery, the reaction here is one of sadness.

According to the New York Post:

Elizabeth Payne, 37, said she had a steamy sexual affair with the controversial, racially divisive man of the cloth while she was an executive assistant at a church headed by a popular Wright protégé.

When word of the unholy alliance got out, Payne's husband dumped her, and she was canned from the plum job at Friendship-West Baptist Church, she told The Post.

"I was involved with Rev. Wright, and that's why I lost my job and why my husband divorced me," Payne said.

She refused to reveal when the adulterous affair started or how she met Wright.

But fellow churchgoers at Friendship-West "found out about the affair in the spring," Payne said.

At the time, she was secretary to the Rev. Frederick Haynes III, a longtime Wright disciple.

In April, Payne organized a series of Texas public appearances by Wright, 67. Weeks before, Obama had disavowed his preacher of 20 years after Wright's anti-government rants came to light.

"Liz was by Rev. Wright's side day and night during those days," a church source said.

"It's all true," said Payne, adding that she has filed a wrongful-dismissal claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to get her job back.

The charges are being taken seriously. Wright this week was speaking at a revival in New Jersey, but the host pastor canceled any further appearances:

More than 300 people had packed the church when Elmwood Presbyterian senior pastor Robert N. Burkins Sr. made the stunning announcement about 7:40 p.m.

"There has been an allegation of impropriety that has surfaced," Burkins explained from the pulpit as all eyes focused on him.

The accusation involves "inappropriate relations with a female in Texas," Burkins said. "These charges are serious and present a profound dilemma. These are unsubstantiated charges that require us to be sensitive. We ask that you all refrain from judgment."

This site has posted other stories on some pretty bad ministers within our denomination and this one is significant. In this case, the "stink test" boils down to whether the incident likely happened and if it demonstrates a fundamental breach of trust that is placed with clergy. Thus far, the layers behind the accusation-- an accusing woman, a divorce, a lost job, secondary eyewitnesses, and a trail of e-mail messages-- don't look good for Wright.

Wright should do himself a favor-- get out of the public eye, surround himself with peers who will hold him accountable, and do the hard work of repentance.

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite's hatred and bigotry

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:47:00 +0000

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, the (thankfully) former President of the Chicago Theological Seminary, is promoting a religious litmus test for Presidential candidates and revealing her deep bigotry towards people who don't share the same faith as she does. Her latest post on the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog should put her comfortably in the company of other bigots like David Duke and Louis Farrakhan. Maybe that's overstating it a bit... Duke and Farakhan have an audience (however small) that takes them seriously while nearly no one knows who Thistlethwaite is or cares what she thinks.

She starts off this week's post with...

"Wives be subject to your husbands, as unto the Lord." So says the Christian scriptures in Ephesians, 5:22. What I would like to know, first of all, is who is going to have the final authority as Vice-President if Sarah Palin is elected, Palin or her husband? In fact, I think the first order of business with Palin is to ask her to give the same kind of speech that was demanded of John F. Kennedy re his Catholicism. Kennedy said he would obey the Constitution over the Pope. Will Palin obey the Constitution over her husband?

Palin, the presumptive Republican vice-presidential candidate, belongs to an Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world. Members of the Assemblies of God believe that the Bible in its entirety is verbally inspired by God, is the revelation of God to humanity and is "the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct." That means, in a literal reading of scripture, that the authority in the Palin family rests with her husband.

The "evangelical base" who are reported to be so "energized" by Palin's nomination as vice-president need to ante up here. Do they believe in the literal word of scripture or not? And if they believe in the literal word of scripture, then they need to demand that the we vet not only Sarah Palin, but more importantly, her husband, Todd Palin. Todd, by the way, works for British Petroleum.

For starters, I don't have a problem at all with a public examination of a political candidate's faith since I believe that faith is a reflection of their belief system. Since similar belief systems can span multiple religions, this doesn't mean that a candidate has to have to have the same faith as I do to be acceptable. This is a significant distinction and it's the difference between bigotry and thoughtful discernment.

Thistlethwaite's post, however, reflects the type of bigotry that should be rejected by people of all faiths.

Some people have rightfully questioned Palin's level of experience but she does have a track record of leadership (however small). It is completely fair to examine what role her faith plays in the decisions she makes as a leader and it is completely fair to wonder if, in her time as a Mayor or as a Governor, there ever been a question or a concern about her husband's role in her decision making? I searched the internet thoroughly this morning and amid the rumors circulating out there, I couldn't find a single example of her husband exercising any authority over his wife in their personal or public lives. None. Since Thistlethwaite doesn't cite any examples, I'm assuming she doesn't know of any examples either... and this is where she crosses the line into bigotry.

Without reason or reference, Thistlethwaite is applying her biased interpretation of Palin's faith and using it as a litmus test that the public should use to evaluate her qualifications. By her own admission, Thistlethwaite has aligned herself with the same anti-Catholic bigots of the 60's who, without merit, unfairly questioned Kennedy's allegiance to the constitution.

I encourage you to read Thistlethwaite's whole post. It is clear reflection of an angry person who has been swallowed up by her own hatred and bigotry.

Disingenuously Right

noreply@blogger.com (UCCtruths) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:41:00 +0000

You have to love this... From USA Today:

A group of ministers filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service to stop a conservative organization from encouraging pastors to endorse or oppose political candidates.
The group of 55 religious leaders from Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and other states said Monday the actions by the Alliance Defense Fund jeopardize the constitutional separation of church and state.

"The rightful place of religious leaders and communities of faith in American life is not in electoral politics," said the Rev. Eric Williams, a minister with the liberal United Church of Christ.

Williams is right but he is completely disingenuous.

Williams didn't voice this level of concern when our denomination hosted presidential candidate Barak Obama last year at our General Synod. While a complaint was filed with the IRS and the UCC was cleared, the Obama campaign leveraged the speech for political purposes and the UCC knew the event would be used for political purposes.

That said, he's still right and according to a USA Today poll he's not alone: "Fifty percent of conservatives think churches and other places of worship should stay out of social and political matters."