The separation of church and state is a source of strength, but the conscience of our nation does not call for separation between men of state and faith in the Supreme Being. --Lyndon B. Johnson Photo Credit--this is NOT our church and it has no connection to this blog entry. I am hating that my church has begun taking sides in the Israeli-Hezbolla war by praying at our worship services for Lebanese children--but not Israeli children--in harm's way. I hate that the National Council of Churches (NCC) and the World Council of Churches (WCC) (associations to which our denomination--along with many other denominations-- belong) believe that they should be dictating policy to its member churches on national and on worldwide political matters.
Our local church is part of a larger organization. On a flow chart for our denomination, the local churches come under the auspices of the state organization and then all the state organizations come under the national church organization which falls under the international organization. We are all connected and the local churches send money upward in the system to help the larger organizations attain their goals. The money flow continues upward at each level. Some of the national and international goals are helping people in disaster zones: floods, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, poverty, war, etc. Some of the money goes to take care of other programs as well as the church infrastructure.
Where we have difficulty, is in understanding why one of our denomination's bishops at the national level issued a letter that was read at our local church last Sunday. It was in the same tone that the NCC and the WCC have been using lately--political yet devoid of any support or concern for the people of Israel.
There has been no ground swell of demands traveling from the our local churches to the top asking that they respond to world events in this way. All the changes have been coming down from on high. In the past, our little church had been humming along as it had always been--meeting the needs of its congregation, neighborhood, and the needy in nearby larger cities, and victims of floods and hurricanes across the US--generally taking care of local church work. Additionally, we sent a generous portion of our collection receipts to the state level of our denomination and everything was just hunky dorey.
Things have changed dramatically lately. And, I can't help believe that my state and national church organization has ignored our right to a voice in its political actions--and that it is using at least 15% (the percentage of total collection dollars that our local church contributes to the state organization--a portion of which goes forward to the national one) of our contributions to do so.
The associations' positions--and now our denomination hierarchy's--are in direct opposition to ours on about every political issue. Yet it now lobbies with
our money to effect governmental or international action or legislation. So, in effect, by attending our little local church, and by putting the amount we pledged into our collection, we now are working against our very own political goals and ideals. We want these two parts of our lives kept separate--as had been the past practice.
We (at our house) are having great difficulty understanding where the church hierarchy gets the idea that they have the mandate and or authority to become a political action committee--which, in effect, they have become--on behalf of their membership. As I mention below, we, at our local church, come from all walks of life and assuredly do not share political views.
We, at first, decided to keep our feelings to ourselves, but, on further thought, decided it wouldn't be fair to the pastors for us to not at least share our concerns. We know there are many within the local church who do not realize that a change has taken place. And, we do know there are several others who share our same feelings. So, after last Sunday's service, we were prompted to write a letter to our pastors.
One of our pastors responded to our letter with one of his own and then we responded to that. Below is the series of letters that have gone back and forth between us discussing this recent change in our worship.
I share this with you because I have to believe that if this kind of shift in focus is happening at our church, it must be happening elsewhere, too. Perhaps our experiences will be of some value to someone else in a similar spot. Or, perhaps someone else may have thoughts or suggestions for us based on their experiences. We hope so.
***
Here are the 3 letters and, then, two articles which we sent to the pastor to read and digest:
Letter 1 (from us to our pastors):
Dear Pastors, We want to share with you the concern we have about the increasing bias and political rhetoric that is finding its way into our worship. We understand that the items you used last Sunday and included in the bulletin are fully sanctioned by Bishop (Whatsisname) and the (national church assembly), but the inclusion of these type of agenda-driven materials at (our church) is a new event.
We have managed in the past to remain neutral on all political issues, while praying for those individuals involved in the
world's crises. In reading over the (national church organization) materials, one cannot escape a purposeful bias against our Jewish friends and allies in Israel. Advocating this opinion, and not praying for the peace of Israel, is seriously beyond any logic or comprehension to us. That our Pastors advocate support of Lebanon (which, sadly, has been unable or unwilling to keep itself free from infiltration by the terrorists of Hezbolla and its aggression) over Israel in this latest "conflict," is of deep concern.
We really do not want to debate the merits of these arguments with ANYone in our church. All opinions can coexist within our congregation, but we feel you should know that it's our desire to hear only a balance of impartiality from the pulpit and alter at (our church).
This letter does not require any response or clarification. We come to church to worship, not to debate politics. This is
really just meant to be the sharing of our personal position on this issue with the two of you. We appreciate your continued "open communication" policy as always.
Sincerely,
(us)
Pastor 1's Response:
Dear (Us),
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding our prayers this last Sunday. It is always my concern that my personal opinion not overshadow what I believe ought to be a prayer of the Church for all God's children, regardless of their nationality or faith. I admit to being overwhelmed by the images of children who had suffered as a result of the Israeli army
bombings. I will work toward being more comprehensive and less biased in my prayers and examples in sermons.
With respect to your concern of "politics" being heard more often at (our church) I fear this is a greater issue as every member of our congregation has promised to "strive for justice and peace in all the earth", and pastors are tasked with the responsibility to "speak publicly to the world in solidarity with the poor and oppressed, calling for justice and proclaiming God's love to the world." While these are inclusive statements they will at times become more specific where an injustice is of greater magnitude.
Please know I am struggling with how to perceive and respond to the crises and events of the world in the light of the gospel. How would Jesus respond to the leaders of today as he so often responded to the leaders of his day (remember the religious and political leaders were often one and the same)? To this extent, we cannot proclaim the gospel in word and deed without it including political ramifications at times. I won't deny the (national church organization) material sounds contrary to our current administration's position. But I would challenge anyone to discern if it is contrary to the gospel.
This is a long response to a comment that asked for none. But as your pastor I cannot remain silent. I feel you need to know where I'm coming from. I would ask and invite you to share your resources of information as so many of the ones currently available (CNN, newspapers, and NPR) are often times biased against our current administration. I've listened to Glen Beck, Rush, and a few others, but they come off as disrespectful and pompous. I would value a credible source for "fair and balanced" reporting on the issues.
Thanks for your ongoing support and concerns,
Pastor #1***
Our Response to Pastor #1's ResponseDear Pastor #1,
Thank you for spending so much genuine charity, energy and time responding to our email. One can understand being overwhelmed by the images of children suffering that are being broadcast over the media. It is indeed a sad thing to see. We wouldn't be human if we could watch such things without recoiling in horror. Our point was that there are children suffering on both sides in this "conflict."
If your only exposure to other than CNN, NPR, and the major newspapers, is Glenn Beck and Rush, I can understand your reluctance to other positions. I don't listen to either of them either (though I have heard them). They're just not our cup of tea. It would be useful if we could identify whether the political commentators have value primarily as entertainers, scholars, or news reporters before listening to or reading their work. Often the public just divides all media into two categories--liberal or conservative--and then recoils from the one with which they do not identify at first exposure.
You should know that we have been registered republicans and registered democrats at different times in our lives--and that we served at high levels in government during democratic administrations. Where we stand on world issues now is a result of our many personal experiences with government, the military, law enforcement, and business because we've worked in them all for longer than we care to remember sometimes. We know, first hand, the characters involved in the newspaper stories quite often. And while, you're right, we both feel more affinity to conservatives today, we are both still registered democrats. (My husband) considers himself a conservative democrat and I consider myself an independent. Both of us consider ourselves Americans before a member of any party. And neither of us make any decision with a blind eye turned anywhere.
Now we said, and we did mean it, that we didn't want to get drawn into political debate with you. Debating can be fun in the right forum, but we want to make ourselves very clear. Your politics are your own and are private, as are ours, and our fellow congregation members'. (Though I felt the need to share more than I probably should have above.) We have no desire to enter into debate or to convert anyone at (our church) to our way of thinking. We heartily believe and respect that their experiences are as valid to them as ours are to us.
Still....We do want to pray for everyone in harm's way without exclusion and for our decision-makers (as you've done so often in the past). We do want our congregation to be able to make its political decisions based on its faith, rather than its faith decisions based on politics. And we do want our church to remain a sanctuary from the outside world. We would hate to see additional political stress and political discord separate us from one another and the peace and harmony that currently exists in our common religious worship. This is our place of spiritual renewal.
We come from all walks of life and have different fields of experience. We are bound to find disagreements if we look for them. I would hope we could focus on our missions, our Bible lessons, our servant leadership roles, and our Communion (in both senses of the word) at (our church).
In any case, I would like to offer two sources for your review. They both pertain to Israel and I think you will find them educational and, above all, factual. We did not write either, but they both express our position better than we could hope to. I hope you do find them more interesting than hard work.
Thank you, once again, for your efforts and concern.
Sincerely, (Us)
****
Article Number 1 (I'll be happy to give you the authors and links later) (I omitted this information with my pastor so as not to let any of his admitted bias interfere with acceptance of the content. For purposes of this blog, I'm including this information. My pastor will also receive it from us soon.)
The Middle East conflict is hard to solve but easy to explain By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Full Article HereThe Middle East conflict is difficult to solve, but it is among the simplest conflicts in history to understand. The Arab and other Muslim enemies of Israel (for the easily confused, this does not mean every Arab or every Muslim) want Israel destroyed. That is why there is a Middle East conflict. Everything else is commentary. Those who deny this and ascribe the conflict to other reasons, such as "Israeli occupation," "Jewish settlements," a "cycle of violence," "the Zionist lobby" and the like, do so despite the fact that Israel's enemies regularly announce the reason for the conflict.
The Iranian regime, Hizbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians -- in their public opinion polls, in their anti-Semitic school curricula and media, in their election of Hamas, in their support for terror against Israeli civilians in pre-1967 borders -- as well as their Muslim supporters around the world, all want the Jewish state annihilated. In 1947-48, the Arab states tried to destroy the tiny Jewish state formed by the United Nations partition plan. In 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan tried to destroy Israel in what became known as the Six-Day War. All of this took place before Israel occupied one millimeter of Palestinian land and before there was a single Jewish settler in the West Bank. Two months after the Six-Day War of June 5-10, 1967, the Arab countries convened in Khartoum, Sudan, and announced on Sept. 1, 1967, their famous "Three NOs" to Israel: "No peace, No recognition, No negotiations."
Six years later, in 1973, Egypt invaded the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula, a war that ended in a boost in Egyptian morale from its initially successful surprise attack. Though nearly all of the Sinai remained in Israel's hands, the boost in Egyptian self-confidence enabled Egypt's visionary president, Anwar Sadat, four years later (November 1977), to do the unimaginable for an Arab leader: He visited Israel and addressed its parliament in Jerusalem. As a result, in 1978, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in return for which Israel gave all of the oil-rich Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt.
Three years later, in 1981, Sadat was assassinated by Egyptian Muslims, a killing welcomed by most Arabs, including the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization). Why welcomed? Because Sadat had done the unforgivable -- recognized Israel and made peace with it. The lesson that Palestinians should have learned from the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement was that if you make peace with Israel, you will not only get peace in return, you will also get all or nearly all of your land back. That is how much Israelis ache for peace.
Think about Israel for one moment: Israel is one of the most advanced countries on earth in terms of culture (most books published, translated from other languages and read per capita; most orchestras per capita, etc.); major advances in medicine; technological breakthroughs; and decency as a society, as exemplified by its treatment of its women, gays and even its large Arab minority (particularly remarkable in light of the widespread Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and desire to annihilate Israel). This is hardly a picture of some bloodthirsty, land-grabbing society. And Jews, whatever their flaws, have never been known to be a violent people. If anything, the stereotypical Jew has been depicted as particularly docile.
As a lifelong liberal critic of Israeli policies, the New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman wrote just two weeks ago: "The Palestinians could have a state on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem tomorrow, if they and the Arab League clearly recognized Israel, normalized relations and renounced violence. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know Israel today." Give Israel peace, and Israel will give you land. Which is exactly what Israel agreed to do in the last year of the Clinton administration. It offered PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat about 97 percent of the West Bank and three percent of Israel's land in exchange for peace. Instead, Israel got its men, women and children routinely blown up and maimed by Palestinian terrorists after the Palestinians rejected the Israeli offer at Camp David.
Even President Clinton, desirous of being the honest broker and yearning to be history's Middle East peacemaker, blamed the ensuing violence entirely on the Palestinians. Israel's Camp David offer of a Palestinian state for Palestinian peace was rejected because most Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim supporters don't want a second state. They want Israel destroyed. They admit it. Only those who wish Israel's demise and the willfully naive do not.
If you don't believe this, ask almost anyone living in the Middle East why there is a Middle East War, preferably in Arabic. If you ask in English, they will assume you are either an academic, a Western news reporter, a diplomat or a "peace activist." And then, they will assume you are gullible and will tell you that it's because of "Israeli occupation" or "the Zionist lobby." But they know it isn't. And it never was.
***
Article Number 2July 25, 2006, 4:42 a.m.
Israel, the Model Dictatorships and single standards. By William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn
Full Article HereFrom the precincts of the European Union to the United Nations to the editorial pages in the United States, it is being argued that Israel'’s response to Hezbollah'’s kidnapping of Israelis and firing of rockets into Israel is "“disproportionate," a threat to the region, and could undo the U.S. democracy project in the Middle East. What is disproportion in the Middle East? How should one state respond to multi-state-sponsored terror?
Begin with the fundamentals. Hezbollah, once described as "“the A-team of terrorists" by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, is a terrorist group with a record of killing hundreds of Americans and Israelis (from Beirut to Saudi Arabia to Argentina to inside Israel). Hezbollah is of global reach and extent. It began with the fundamental goals of creating an Islamist state in Lebanon and the total annihilation of Israel. It is armed and supported by Syria and Iran, and it has branches in some 20 countries. It occupies 20 percent of the Lebanese parliament but that percentage does not give it sufficient due. Here is Amir Taheri in the London Times:
Hezbollah is a state within the Lebanese state. It controls some 25% of the national territory. Almost 400,000 of Lebanon’s estimated 4 million inhabitants live under its control. It collects its own taxes with a 20% levy, known as “khoms”, on all incomes. It runs its own schools, where a syllabus produced in Iran is taught at all levels. It also runs clinics, hospitals, social welfare networks and centres for orphans and widows.
The party controls the elected municipal councils and appoints local officials, who in theory should be selected by the central government in Beirut. To complete its status as a virtual state, the party maintains a number of unofficial “embassies”: the one in Tehran is bigger and has a larger number of staff than that of Lebanon itself.
Hezbollah also has its own media including a satellite television channel, Al-Manar (the lighthouse), which is watched all over the Arab world, four radio stations, newspapers and magazines plus a book publishing venture. The party has its own system of justice based on sharia and operates its own police force, courts and prisons. Hezbollah runs youth clubs, several football teams and a number of matrimonial agencies.In sum, it may very well have the run of Lebanon more than non-Hezbollah factions and institutions. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, brags about this today.
As for Israel'’s disproportion, it is worth remembering that Israel is but one state--with a majority of Jews but a substantial Arab population. The Arab states number 22. The land-mass comparison is some 10,000 square miles compared to over five million square miles. That does not include Iran. The Palestinian Authority, situated now in the southwest of Israel, is a Hamas entity--it is more lethal and Islamist than Arafat'’s PLO.
President Bush, in articulating the post-9/11 doctrine, stated: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
In some respects it is unnecessary to ask whether Lebanon "“harbors" or "harbored" Hezbollah; but one definition of "“harbor"” is "to provide refuge" and there is no question that at the bare minimum, Lebanon allowed Hezbollah to operate in its country --gave it ministerial portfolios in the cabinet and allowed the seating of its elected officials in parliament. It may, as a fragile, burgeoning, democracy have had no choice but to do this. But the question remains: Was that fragile democracy slowly moving to eradicate Hezbollah from its midst or was Hezbollah growing stronger and stronger?
We know this about terrorists groups: As nature abhors a vacuum, terrorists thrive in them--that is where they grow and empower themselves. And at least since Israel left Lebanon six years ago, Hezbollah has not gotten weaker. Further, if Hezbollah had believed Lebanon was constricting it rather than allowing it to thrive, it would not have launched an incursion into Israel.
Nonetheless, Israel has not deliberately targeted the Lebanese government. Still, the question arises, however, that if the U.S. sides alone with Israel, would that not be a terrible message to send to the broader Middle East democracy initiative. This is the question that is the most lopsided of them all.
We have long believed that, paraphrasing former CIA director Jim Woolsey, democracy is not one vote, one time. Israel is in the Middle East and is a democracy that passes the Woolsey test and has done so for almost 60 years. Lebanon has had one election in recent times and it weaved Hezbollah into that democracy. The PA had an election and it put Hamas in charge. It seems to us that if one wants to further the Middle East democracy project--and not be cynical about it--the U.S. is doing precisely what it should: showing support for the established democracy, not the fragile and inept one that allows, tolerates or--at a minimum--turned a blind eye to Hezbollah in its midst.
At the end of the day, if Middle Eastern democracies are desired, and they are, does one not want models to point to? What model should the U.S. be pointing to to the Iranian dissidents, the Egyptian dissidents, the Saudi dissidents? Would we be right to say, "“Vote and behave like they did in Lebanon, and erect a government like that (where 400,000 people live under Hezbollah control)," or "“Look at Israel: It comes to the aid of others around the world, it has a minority population with full democratic rights that even serve in government, and its economy, free of oil, works."
It may be wishful thinking to assume Arab peoples will fully want Israel as their model, indeed it is probably naive. Nonetheless, if the U.S. is to be held accountable for initiating and supporting democracies, the one that is one year old and hosts Hezbollah is not the model we should be propagating. So the next time the question is asked about the Middle East democracy project in light of Israel, Lebanon, and the Middle East--the reminder needs to be made: Israel is a democracy and it is in the Middle East. And one final point: If Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran were to be victorious in their military actions and ideology, two things would not exist: 1) Israel and 2) Lebanese democracy of any kind.
*****
