Friday, January 25, 2008

Phony, ignorant Christians

Pretty strong words in this article from WorldNetDaily. And yet, they almost seem warranted by the action being considered by the United Methodist Church. Boycott all companies with links to Israel? What is that all about?

Mr. Farah's quotation of Paul about the behavior of men in the last days is a relevant and sobering reminder that there are many, many wolves among the sheep, and the flock is being scattered.

Sir Chuck


  1. Calling any Christian a hypocrite is a harsh thing to say, and not to be made lightly. Saying it is not behaving as a Christian should is different. No one does that all the time so saying a particular Christian at a particular time did not is a different story.
    This however is an example of doing something that I think is wrong-to use ministerial authority to give political opinions. Obviously, some political disputes have such an obvious moral tinge that, that is necessary(remember the controversy over Pope Pius?). However one must keep in memory the fact that usually a minister is speaking on a subject on which he has no more authority then a layman. But by using a sermon to broadcast those opinions he is tacitly claiming to say, "thus saith the Lord".
    The fact is that the controversy is not about a moral outrage-Israel hasn't done anything that any other nation in a similar position wouldn't have done. What the sermon is saying is, "That's not what People Like Us do". The North Koreans etc are dismissed as, "that's what they do" and protesting them is a wasted effort, like protesting germs. All very well, but saying that bias is a reason for turning a sermon into politics is wrong. That should be saved for extreme issues and war is simply a part of fallen man's existence. A comparison is to the Medieval Popes' habit of rashly using excomunications. The result was simply that the sting was drawn from the process.
    In point of fact, I don't belief we should even have an American flag in church. For one thing it has to be on the right which implies seniority*. This is a trivial point as no one thinks about it. More important it is bringing the symbol of a political organization to a place where it does not belong. Honoring the flag is all very well. But not in Church. I don't make a bother of that, but it really is not proper.
    In any case, that is the point. The Methodists are giving a political opinion in a sermon. One which not all their congregants will agree with, let alone all Christians. An opinion which is highly questionable at best. They are also advocating a means of dubious utility to reach a goal that is itself dubious. And doing so without the permission of the Church in general. In other words they are overstepping their authority tremendously.

    Sir Jason

    *An old tradition which came from the Ancient Greeks. The warrior on the front-right corner of the phalanx was the most vulnerable because he could not lean to the left far enough to get the protection of his comrades shield. Therefore he was the most honorable.

  2. I find the action despicable. At best it shows ignorance; at worst it shows, well, something much worse.

    Don't they know that the twelve gates of heaven are named after the twelve tribes of Israel.

    It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names {were} written on them, which are {the names} of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel. Rev 21:12

    It does not look like God is planning any kind of a boycott of Israel.

    I think we need to pray for the Methodist church, or at least, the people in it. There are probably still a goodly number or real Christians in those denominations who are being taught all kinds of foolish idea.

    Psa 137:5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem, May my right hand forget {her skill.}

    Sir John, a bit outraged.

  3. Excellent points all, Sir Jason...

    Outraged as well, Sir John...

    Sir Chuck