Interview with Prof Paul Charles Merkley concerning the WCC divestment decision

Interview with Prof Paul Charles Merkley concerning the WCC divestment decision

Re-post

IsraPundit has had the privilege and honour of posting several articles contributed by history professor emeritus Prof Paul Charles Merkley (to see these article, enter the word "merkley" in our search engine, at the middle of the right-hand column).

In this post, we bring to our readers an e-interview centered on the WCC divestment decision. Prof Merkley, my fellow-Ottawan, is eminently qualified to elucidate the issues involved, since Prof Merkley is at one and the same time a professional historian, a practising Lutheran, and an expert on Israel-Christian affairs.

Readers who wish to pose additional questions are asked to post the questions as comments, and I will ask Prof Merkley to respond.

Using a Canadian understatement, I extend my heartfelt thanks to Prof Merkley for agreeing to grant this interview to IsraPundit and for responding expeditiously.

E-interview with Prof Paul Charles Merkley, History Professor Emeritus, Carleton University, Ottawa


Question: IsraPundit readers are familiar with the formal description of the WCC, as given in such websites as http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/mch-e.html. From your personal perspective, however, as scholar and church-member, how would you describe and characterize the WCC? How does the WCC keep out the Evangelical churches?


Answer: A quick reminder: the WCC was founded in 1948 (a few weeks AFTER the State of Israel was founded!) as the inclusive voice of all of what were in those days regarded as the “mainstream” Protestant churches, including the Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. (All of these churches, incidentally, while still designated as “mainstream” by lazy-minded journalists today, began almost immediately to decline, not only proportionately but in terms of absolute numbers of members, and in the 1980s and 1990s they went into a tailspin. It is they who are now marginal, and the despised Evangelicals and Pentecostals (non-members of the WCC)– which, along with Roman Catholics, are truly mainstream in America.)

The WCC eventually expanded to include 347 member denominations worldwide, including the Orthodox Churches and others, but not the Roman Catholic Church; there is however close cooperation between the WCC and the Roman Catholic Church when positions are taken on major issues arising in world affairs. RC and WCC statements on the evils of U.S. policy, on armaments and security issues, and notably on attitudes towards Israel, are virtually identical.

It is not correct to say that the WCC “keeps out” the Evangelical and Pentecostal church bodies. The WCC still has its heart set on becoming the One Big Church, but long ago it decided that the conservative wing of the Church is so deplorably lacking in intellectual credit and so anti-progressive on all the major social and moral issues (abortion, same sex marriage, etcetera) that its presence in its own camp would discredit the WCC as a liberal and progressive voice, capable of combining in the world-political arena with other progressive forces. But WCC revulsion for “fundamentalists” is more than matched by Evangelical and Pentecostal revulsion over the betrayal, as they see it, of Christian witness by the WCC. These theologically-orthodox churches recognize the incompatibility between the liberal-relativist theology and philosophy pursued by the WCC and their own Biblically-based theology.


Question: Why, in your opinion, did the WCC come out now with the divestment decision? Israel has done nothing special in the last year, other than improve her relations with the PA – so, why now?


Answer: On the face of it, the WCC’s pronouncement is behind the curve of recent events. It comes at the very moment when, after four years of intifada and discontinued diplomacy, Israel and the Palestinian Authority have resumed serious negotiations, having now the encouragement of virtually the entire world – except the terrorists and their sponsors. Instead of applauding this long-hoped-for initiative, the WCC chooses now to cast doubt on the viability of diplomacy by clinging to the one-sided anti-Israel invective that has hitherto subverted hopes for diplomacy.

I see three possible explanations for this:

1. The WCC takes a long time to write its documents. It is possible that their in-house journalists simply haven’t got the energy to re-write the text which has been moving up within its massive bureaucracy for so many months.
2. WCC thinking has become so adamantine that change is no longer possible. External reality is no longer consulted by these deep-thinkers. In recent months, the Universities – from which the WCC got the fashionable idea of divestment – have started backing away from divestment.


It is typical of the WCC that it joins in on left-wing habits of thinking only after everyone identifying as a progressive has picked up on them – by which time, the wave has begun to recede and the rhetoric shifts. We find an earlier example of this in the late 1930s, when these same “mainstream” Churches (then clustered in the Federal Council of Churches, in the days before the inauguration of the WCC) were still making Common Front noises about the Peace-loving Soviet Union while simultaneously preaching pacifism and the need for understanding towards the diplomacy being pursued by Adolf Hitler.

If this intake of history is too much for people with normal political interests and limited historical memory, we need go back no further than the Cold War years, when WCC dignitaries were taking Communist-government-funded tours of the Communist world, and returning to denounce rumour-mongers in our midst who pretended that there were restrictions of freedom, including the freedom of worship, in the Communist world. To my knowledge, we have never received from the WCC any public and formal recantation of their sinful assistance to Communist tyranny. Nor should we expect to live to see similar recantation of their present celebration of the alleged record of religious tolerance in Muslim empires of the past or present. People who are confident of their total righteousness cannot be changed by arguments deriving from fact.

3. The most sinister explanation – and I fear the most likely – is that the WCC is now panicking in face of the real prospect of a diplomatic solution of the Israel-Palestine dispute, which could result in the Palestinian side settling with the State of Israel. The WCC leadership has been drinking disinformation for decades from the well of the Middle East Council of Churches, and is committed to Israel’s illegitimacy. In its statement of February 21, the WCC implies that the real boundaries of Israel – the boundaries that now need to be re-negotiated, are not those of 1967 but those of 1948. WCC supports the unlimited right of return of “Palestinian refuges”, fully cognizant of the fact that if any substantial part of that multi-million population is canted back inside the 1948 boundaries, then the Jewish state will not be able to contain them. It is my considered belief, reached through careful study of dozens and dozens of WCC statements on this issue, that the WCC will not let up on Israel until it is no more.

Righteousness has made these priests mad. It has not registered with them that soon after Israel is no more, the Church will be no more. The slogan that keeps Muslimists alive is the one that runs: “After the Saturday people [the Jews], will come the Sunday people [the Christians]”.

Perhaps in some minds it will mitigate the criminality of WCC thinking to reflect that it is not “anti-Semitism” but self-loathing that has made the Church so hostile to Israel. In my mind, however, it makes it worse.


Question: The treatment meted out to Christians under the PA control is well known. The death penalty prescribed for Moslems converting to Christianity, for example, is no secret. The Prism Group (http://www.theprismgroup.org/TreatmentChristianArabs.htm) has posted a long indictment in this regard. How do you explain that the WCC turns a blind eye to the suffering of its own, while condemning Israel?


Answer: In scriptural language, it is because they prefer the praise of men to the praise of God.

The educated leadership of the WCC is totally out of touch with attitudes of the laity, while totally attuned to attitudes in the secular world. It is a point of pride with these people that they see relative virtue and partial truth in everything. They have given up on the notion of the Bible as a book of revealed truth and on the Creed as a body of truthful propositions in light of which other beliefs and other propositions must be judged. To keep themselves credible in the great world of learning it is essential (they believe) for them to get to the head of the global army of deconstruction and antinomianism. They never miss an opportunity to put on pagan clerical garb and join in solemn festivities of all the anti-Christian religious groups, in order to establish their bona fides as friends of all spirituality.

From its beginning in 1948, it has been the policy of the WCC to deny the plainest evidence of anti-Christian activity in foreign lands and simultaneously to discount anti-Christian expression wherever it appears. To join in recognition of the extent of Christian martyrdom in our time, they believe, would undermine their credentials as impartial friends of all seekers of truth. Christian people who escaped Communist persecution in the Soviet world have live to tell us that their sufferings were made especially acute by their jailors’ publication of the denials of their situation made by visiting Western Church leaders. Persecuted Christians in China, North Korea, and in nations that have governments committed to the enforcement of Quranic law, have unbridled contempt for the WCC.


Question: In the course of the media debate on the WCC decision, certain interesting factors concerning the WCC have surfaced. For example, a Jpost report (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1109387976122&p=1006953079865) mentioned that the WCC supported violent terrorist groups in Zimbabwe and elsewhere, and that “between 2000 and 2003, the WCC issued 36 human-rights complaints against Israel and two about Sudan, where close to two million black Africans, many of them Christian, were killed”. I wonder how the Christian rank and file in Canada and the US can stomach such known facts?


Answer: The fact is that they don’t stomach it. The rift between laity and the elites who turn out “official” statements for the Churches is widening with every passing day.


Question: In your opinion, does the divestment decision of the WCC hierarchy reflect the sentiments of the rank-and-file? If not, is there a way in which the rank-and-file can make their voice heard? What are “mainstream” church-members saying about the divestment decision?


Answer: It is a mistake to think of the laity as innocent in this matter. It is the duty of every person who belongs to any organization to be informed about what the leaders of his organizations pronounces on his behalf. The nub of the problem in the Church is that the laity persist in ignorance of the published “official” opinions of their churches. This is just one consequence of the limited and half-hearted character of the commitment which most Christians have to the Churches to which they nominally adhere.

There is a tendency for hard-working politicians to prefer to have opinion wholesale, and this is what inspires leaders of organizations to line up at their doors offering wholesale opinion – the opinion of the medical profession, the opinion of women, the opinion of children, the opinion of taxpayers, and so on. There are organizations that will deliver all of this to you wholesale. The easy path for the politician is to take WCC documents at their face value, and quote them as “Christian opinion.”

Christian laity bear a terrible moral responsibility here. I don’t know what is helpful to say here other than that Christians ought to be Christians – they ought to be active in the determination of their denomination’s views, and they ought not to let pass as the expression of their own views what are in fact the attitudes of elites.

Here’s a modest thought: It might be a good beginning if every individual who ever stood up in his Church, at Baptism or Confirmation and said, “I am a Christian”, would actually turn up in Church next Sunday. On the way out, he might pick up the denomination’s newsletter, and when he gets home, he might read it. What else can I say.


Question: What, in your view, can Israel's supporters, Jews and non-Jews alike, do to oppose the WCC divest met plan? Can bloggers assume any useful role?


Answer: In this as in so many recent public matters, bloggers have played an absolutely indispensable role, drawing attention to the emperor’s new clothes, as professional journalists (afraid to appear uninformed or unsophisticated) will not.


Question: What are the implication of the WCC decision vis-a-vis the Christian churches in Canada? I understand that the Canadian Council of Churches as a whole is a member of the WCC?


Answer: The line breaks within the Canadian Church precisely as it does in the Church in the U.S. -- except that the non-WCC side of the Church (Pentecostals, especially) are a somewhat larger component there than here.


Question: Do you believe that there is any chance that the WCC will rescind the divestment decision? If yes, under what circumstances?


Answer: I have a poor record as a prophet. I can’t help thinking, though, that, this initiative might well run out as the pure meanness and the mindlessness of it registers.

I would hope that, while recollection of long-ago theology instruction may be growing dim, arithmetic still lives on in most clerical minds. Declining numbers of members means lesser contributions to the pension funds of presently active clergy. Divesting the pension fund of some of its best assets, at a time when so many of these denominations are bearing the burden of adverse court judgements arising out of alleged child abused cases and other matters, is – morality aside – more than heroic, it is suicidal. Re-inventing the Gospel to allow homosexual ordination and marriage has already cost Anglicans and others hundreds of thousands of members. I cannot understand how the rank and file of clergy, whose pension funds are at stake, would agree to deliberately ruing the solvency health of their pension funds by simultaneously divesting the accounts of some of their best assets, and driving out of the ranks of their laity the many hundreds of thousands who regard themselves as friends of Israel.

Note: This interview has been cross-posted at the Blogger News Network.

Posted by Joseph Alexander Norland at March 7, 2005 08:02 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/7853

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Interview with Prof Paul Charles Merkley concerning the WCC divestment decision:

» Not another day, not another day from NIF
Today's dose of NIF - daily News, Interesting & Funny [Read More]

Tracked on March 4, 2005 11:24 AM

» Prof Merkley Speaks on WCC Divestment from Rite Turn Only
Great interview of Prof Merkley by IsraPundit. [Read More]

Tracked on March 4, 2005 09:40 PM


Comments

1. Robert Carroll said:

From Dr Robert Carroll PhD ThD European Theological Seminar. UK.

This is an excellent article. But what concerns me is what is driving these people who claim to be Christian, yet are so anti semetic? I suspect one major reason may be found their false and satanic doctrine of replacement theology.

Take away this doctrine and they lose all of their power, pomp and ceremony, not to mention their generous life style.

Posted by: Robert Carroll on March 4, 2005 04:28 AM

2. Dr. E. Metzler-Moziani, Judge (ret.) said:

It makes me vomit when somebody is described as "a practising Lutheran". How can somebody be a historian, and not be ashamed to be called a Lutheran?

None other than Martin Luther is the father of German anti-Semitism and of the so-called "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem" in Auschwitz. Of course, the German Nazi Christians are prominent members of the World Council of Churches, - and after succeeding in murdering six million Jews in the first Holocaust, are giving their ecumenical support to Islamic Jihad working for a second Holocaust in order to destroy the State of Israel, and exterminate the surviving rest of Jewry.

Cf. Martin Luther - 'On the Jews and their Lies' Chapter 15
http://awitness.org/books/luther/luther_jews/15_treat.html

Be sure to read the various enumerated points on this webpage:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools ...

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed ... Instead they might belodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. [i.e: put them into concentration camps.]

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, ...

Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, ... [i.e. forced labor]

See also the excellent book-review on the German "Theology of Betrayal"
http://tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0105/article/010553.html

The mainstream Lutheran protestant state church of Germany (the EKD = Evangelische Kirche Deutschlands) was pro-Hitler. The so-called Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche), while it differed from the EKD in some respects, was certainly not so pro-Jewish, as it afterwards claimed.

Judea for Jews! -- No Arab Trojan-Horse State in Israel's heartland!
-- Ban Arabs from Israel, as long as Arabia and Jordan ban Jews! --


Posted by: Dr. E. Metzler-Moziani, Judge (ret.) on March 4, 2005 07:09 AM

3. joanna mcleod said:

Thank you for an excellent and thoughtful interview:

One question for Prof. Merkley: Do you see the way forward as (1) trying to convince the WCC to rescind its divestment decision; or (2) trying to discredit the WCC generally, and encourage its laiety to join a more orthodox branch of their faith? (and why?)

Thank you,
Joanna McLeod

Posted by: joanna mcleod on March 4, 2005 08:02 AM

4. NIS said:

The Norwegian Israel Center against anti-Semitism (NIS) sent this letter was sent
to the WCC.

It can also be clicking on this link: WCC-NIS

World Council of Churches' call for financial and economic blackmail of
Israel as part of the peace process


The Norwegian Israel Center against anti-Semitism (NIS) would like to express
its disappointment about the anti-Jewish decision made by the Central Committee
of the World Council of Churches in its meeting 15-22 February, as published
in the minutes of the meeting and in a press release of 21 February 2005.


In its decision, the Central Committee of the WCC (WCC/CC) encourages its members
"to give serious consideration to economic measures …as a new way
to work for peace, by looking at ways to not participate economically in illegal
activities related to the Israeli occupation. In that sense, the committee affirmed
"economic pressure, appropriately and openly applied," as a "means
of action".


The WCC/CC "reminds churches with investment funds that they have an opportunity
to use those funds responsibly in support of peaceful solutions to conflict.
Economic pressure, appropriately and openly applied, is one such means of action".


The statement that these methods of pressure are aimed at "supporting
peaceful solutions to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict" is untrue. The
encouragement of financial blackmail and economic sanctions is directed against
Israel exclusively, and is therefore clearly intended to support the Arab war
against Israel. This discrimination is strongly reinforced by the further use
of false information about the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, to
support the WCC/CC argument.


This call by The WCC/CC is conspicuously unsuitable for bringing about peace.
It may rather serve to prolong war, should its contents ever be believed and
implemented by anyone. As the WCC/CC is well aware, the Arabs do not need any
further encouragement to kill Jews, which they have done for centuries. Since
1948, the Arabs have been focusing on the destruction of the Jewish state, and
innumerable statements, attacks and acts of terrorism until this day, testify
to the fact that this objective remains firm.


The WCC/CC impudently builds its entire argument on a claim that Israel violates
International Law, by building a security fence in "occupied territory"
and that multinational corporations are involved in violation of International
Law "inside occupied territory, and in other violations of international
law being carried out beyond the internationally recognized borders of the State
of Israel determined by the Armistice of 1949". This statement by the WCC/CC
is a blatant lie.


The Arab war against Israel began with their joint attack on 15 May 1948. The
armistice negotiations, supervised by the UN, resulted in armistice agreements
in 1949, expressly stating that the armistice lines are "not to be construed
in any sense as a political or territorial boundary". These lines are not
claimed by any state as "the internationally recognized borders of the
State of Israel".


Furthermore, the WCC/CC suppresses the fact that Israel in 1979 and 1994 entered
formal peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, delineating their present international
borders in detail. These are the internationally recognized borders of Israel,
established under strict observation of International Law, and which include
the lands of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza strip within the State of Israel.


By apparently attempting to abolish these peace agreements, the WCC/CC makes
a strong argument in favor of terminating the peace process, and reopening the
war of 1948. We must therefore conclude that, contrary to its claim of working
for peace, the WCC/CC is encouraging its member churches to support the resumption
of a devastating and inhuman war.


By basing its argument on lies and concealments, the WCC/CC places the entire
responsibility for the conflict on the Jewish State of Israel, but not on the
Arab countries' continuous war against it. The WCC/CC encourages its member
churches to engage in financial and economic blackmail against the Jews, and
against no one else. This is also discrimination.


Falsification, discrimination and racism

The WCC/CC, which clearly and sharply comments on "Israel's occupation"
(of Judea), is silent when it comes to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, which
has lasted for approximately 30 years. It is also silent about the Arab occupation
of other countries in the Middle East and North Africa and their repression
of tens of millions of religious and ethnic minorities including Christians,
Berbers, Sudanese, Kurds, Bahá'ís, Druse, Jews and, and even Muslims.
Besides being a failure of the WCC/CC to fulfill its Christian obligations,
this is also discrimination.


The discrimination and falsification is further emphasized by the regular repetition
by the WCC/CC of their call for "effective, international guarantees for
the political independence and territorial integrity for all nations in the
region, including Israel". As it appears, only Arab tyrannies have so far
received effective support for their "serious and legitimate security concerns"
by The WCC/CC. All other nations and minorities in the region are endangered.


In November 1979, a delegation of Copts pleaded with the WCC/CC for help, as
they were being brutally persecuted, their women (especially young girls) kidnapped,
raped and forcibly converted to Islam. The Copts were not even permitted to
present their plea, but were summarily rejected, as were also their later pleas
with the WCC. The only ones being criticized by WCC/CC are the Jews. According
to common sense of justice, human conscience and the word of the Bible, this
is discrimination based on religion and race (Deuteronomy 25:13: "Do not
have two differing weights in your bag, -one heavy, one light").


Applying the Bible against the Jews

It is saddening to see that the WCC/CC seems to overlook the 1700 years of persecution
of Jews by its member churches. The WCC/CC continues to use the Scriptures
to mock the Jews, and calls on its members to do the "things that make
for peace" (Luke 19:42). Those of us who are free to continue reading the
quoted text understand full well what the WCC/CC thinks about "those who
are responsible for the strife" (Luke 19:43): "For the days will come
upon you when your enemies will build ramparts against your walls and encircle
you, and they will close in on you from all sides". This obvious threat
against the Jews, adopted from the Presbyterians, urging the member churches
of WCC to actively engage in the fulfillment of this prophecy by using their
financial assets to "…encircle…and close in on…" the
Jews, ought to be taken seriously for what it is. Any Muslim scholar would immediately
perceive it as a "Fatwa" on the destruction of Israel, supporting
his own.


Christianity has often enough demonstrated its animosity towards the Jewish
nation. When the WCC/CC, therefore, repeats its statement that "criticism
of the policies of the Israeli government is not in itself anti-Jewish"
- we already know this to be as false as the lies upon which this criticism
is being based.


We therefore recommend the WCC/CC to stop practicing its double set of moral
standards: one for Jews and another for Gentiles. We ask the WCC/CC to initiate
a call for an end to Christian anti-Semitism and its harmful consequences.


Sincerely yours,


Norwegian Israel Center against anti-Semitism (NIS)

Erez Uriely, Director


Posted by: NIS on March 4, 2005 09:10 AM

5. someguy said:

"Christian laity bear a terrible moral responsibility here. I don’t know what is helpful to say here other than that Christians ought to be Christians – they ought to be active in the determination of their denomination’s views, and they ought not to let pass as the expression of their own views what are in fact the attitudes of elites."

Which is pretty much why so many of them have left--and continue to leave--the mainline Churches in the Anglosphere.

If I could, I would ask Professor Merkley why the same Churches are flourshing in Africa and Asia, and if they share in the anti-Semitism of the leaders of their Anglosphere mother churches. I'm guessing the answer to the second question is "No." But I'd love to find out.

Thanks for the heads up on this, Joseph. Very interesting.

Posted by: someguy on March 4, 2005 10:57 AM

6. Barbara Hedrick said:

This gentleman has amazing insight in the intellectual realm. As a Pentecostal Christian Zionist it is clear to me that the world has missed/forgotten what a Christian is. Jesus didn't die on the cross and pay the price for all the world's sins so they could put a sign on a building and set up an empire/government/religion. A true Christian has repented of his/her personal sin and received forgiveness because Jesus paid the price by His shed Blood. A true Christian is a follower of Jesus. A true Christian follows the Bible and not a man. A true Christian has a personal relationship with Jesus the Messiah. A true Christian searches the Scriptures to see if what man says is so. A true Christian understands what the Bible says about the future and God's plan for Israel and the world. Jesus was a Jew and the disciples and first believers were Jews. It was the man made religious Jews who rejected Him just as today it is the man made religious groups who call themselves Christians but really aren't who reject His Word. Each and every person will answer to God for how they have treated "the apple of His eye".

Posted by: Barbara Hedrick on March 4, 2005 01:50 PM

7. Isaac said:

The WCC is filled with an intent to eliminate words like Jewish, Jews, Judaism, Torah from the face of the earth. 1967 was a very important marker as Hitler's work was unfinished and Nasser, Assad and the rest of the thugs would help to finish the job.The WCC was waiting, champagne glasses in hand, to see the end. The Jewish mind prevailed!
If they could, the WCC would assist Islam in finishing the job. Fortunately, there are large numbers of good Christians who will not let that happen! Amen!

Posted by: Isaac on March 4, 2005 07:00 PM

8. Al Gordon - Canadian Coalition for Democracies said:

What a brilliant interview and analysis! Many thanks.

The mainstream Protestant churches have been the suppliers of moral comnfort to anti-Semites since at least the Third Reich. Is it the missionary impulse that needs to have the "less fortunate" to maintain their sense of self-worth? The Israelis and Americans don't need their "help" and are despised for their independence. The Palestinians can't tie their shoelaces without the ministrations of churches and NGOs, and represent a customer base that will keep these malicious do-gooders in business for generations.

A while ago in the National Post, the mainstream Protestant churches again decided that the only country in the world worthy of their wrath was Israel. I found similar statements during the Third Riech, and was able to see a consistent thread from 1939 until the present (and likely as far back as Martin Luther). That commentary is at the link in this posting.

Al Gordon
Canadian Coalition for Democracies

Posted by: Al Gordon - Canadian Coalition for Democracies on March 4, 2005 09:44 PM

9. BobW said:

WCC reminds me of the classical "front organization". It's name reveals this. WCC admit to no single theology, ie there are some member organizations in refutation of the teachings of Christianity. This refutes II John 9-11.

This front organization supports US affiliation with the International Criminal Court. WCC demands access to US detainees at Guantanamo.

I know the WCC gave money to the Patriotic Front of Zambabwe, a Communist military organization. WCC supports world disarmament. They remind me of Riverside Church, Manhattan, where political speeches are given under the auspices of being sermons.

There is a hidden blessing in divestment. It weakens the WCC.

Time is against WCC because they are antagonistic to both Christian teachings and Middle America values.

Kol tuv,
BobW

Posted by: BobW on March 5, 2005 06:18 AM

10. Dr. E. Metzler-Moziani, Judge (ret.) said:

Postscript: Since the minutes of the WCC 21 Feb 2005 Israel divestment decision explicitly refers to last year's decision on the same subject by the Presbyterian Church of the USA, it is appropriate to call attention again to the below petition, which resulted only in a few thousand signatures. In view of the hundreds of millions of Christians represented by the World Council of Churches, Christianity must be deemed, what it has always been since the invention of anti-Semitism and replacement theology by the Church Fathers around 300 C.E., namely a satanic and criminal killer-religion like Islam, unless the following Petition gains new momentum:


Call to the Presbyterian Church to reverse its anti-Semitic resolution on divestment Petition
http://PetitionOnline.com/presby2/petition.html


See the Judensau -- still at Luther's Church in Wittenberg:

Source: Historical Christian Antisemitism Centre
http://hcacentre.org/Judensau.html


Judea for Jews! -- No Arab Trojan-Horse State in Israel's heartland!
-- Ban Arabs from Israel, as long as Arabia and Jordan ban Jews! --


Posted by: Dr. E. Metzler-Moziani, Judge (ret.) on March 6, 2005 06:09 AM

11. BobW said:

Shalom Dr Metzler-Moziani,

With a preface that our sentiments are probably identical re a Jewish Israel, I do not believe it is supportable to say that WCC represents hundreds of millions of Christians.

Brother Stair's sect (shortwave radio, South Carolina, USA) is as antagonistic to the Archbishop of Canterberry's group as the late Mier Vilner of ICP/Hadash relates to the Bobover Rav.

Many of the sects of Christianity have evolved since Saul of Taurus (St Paul) affiliated with Constantine the Great. Sigmund Freud even wrote that the Nazis had Christianity imposed on them, ie, they did not accept the doctrines.

Kol tuv,
BobW

Posted by: BobW on March 6, 2005 12:05 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)