My near neighbour in the Methodist blogsphere Fat Prophet takes the rest of our blogsphere to task for the language used during recent exchanges about Palestine and Israel.
That there has been a very robust debate is beyond question. In the circumstances though, should we expect anything different? Especially when our debate is joined by a number of people who are slightly better informed than most Methodists.
In fact the debate hasn't turned out to be as bad as it could have been. Some very interesting discussions have emerged, most notably on Dave Warnock's blog.
We in the Methodist Church have allowed ourselves to be dragged into one of the world's most difficult problems. Inexplicably we chose to take an extremely partisan position. A small group of activists led us by the nose into taking a decisions which many Methodists just don't understand or support.
Should we be surprised that we receive hostile comments on Methodist blogs that are supportive of the current position?
Just one example.
1. We provide a platform for a Palestinian clergyman, Naim Ateek.
2. He tells the Methodist conference that Palestinian Christians "appreciate" Hamas.
3. Hamas is the organisation that brainwashes 15 or 16 year old Palestinian schoolgirls to put on suicide vests, get onto Israeli school buses and kill several 15 or 16 year old Israeli schoolgirls.Thankfully this activity has stopped because Israel built a security fence around its territory.
4. No one from the Methodist Church (apart from me and one or two other lowly individuals) has sought to distance British Methodists from Ateek's statement.
5. Israelis take grave exception to the Methodist Church apparently endorsing this "appreciation" of Hamas and its murders.
The British Methodist Church took the decision to open our collective mouth and make statements about a complex situation in two territories where we have neither churches or members. Some were delighted that our position was greeted with acclaim. Others questioned that decision and were disappointed.
I came to the conclusion that in any case the conference resolution was probably illegal. It went well beyond the powers of conference and risked being discriminatory. In recent days we have had on the blogsphere the sort of debate that should have been had at conference. It has got heated and will get even more heated as the date for the court hearing approaches. But it in not a bad thing that we have this debate.![]()
That there has been a very robust debate is beyond question. In the circumstances though, should we expect anything different? Especially when our debate is joined by a number of people who are slightly better informed than most Methodists.
In fact the debate hasn't turned out to be as bad as it could have been. Some very interesting discussions have emerged, most notably on Dave Warnock's blog.
We in the Methodist Church have allowed ourselves to be dragged into one of the world's most difficult problems. Inexplicably we chose to take an extremely partisan position. A small group of activists led us by the nose into taking a decisions which many Methodists just don't understand or support.
Should we be surprised that we receive hostile comments on Methodist blogs that are supportive of the current position?
Just one example.
1. We provide a platform for a Palestinian clergyman, Naim Ateek.
2. He tells the Methodist conference that Palestinian Christians "appreciate" Hamas.
3. Hamas is the organisation that brainwashes 15 or 16 year old Palestinian schoolgirls to put on suicide vests, get onto Israeli school buses and kill several 15 or 16 year old Israeli schoolgirls.Thankfully this activity has stopped because Israel built a security fence around its territory.
4. No one from the Methodist Church (apart from me and one or two other lowly individuals) has sought to distance British Methodists from Ateek's statement.
5. Israelis take grave exception to the Methodist Church apparently endorsing this "appreciation" of Hamas and its murders.
The British Methodist Church took the decision to open our collective mouth and make statements about a complex situation in two territories where we have neither churches or members. Some were delighted that our position was greeted with acclaim. Others questioned that decision and were disappointed.
I came to the conclusion that in any case the conference resolution was probably illegal. It went well beyond the powers of conference and risked being discriminatory. In recent days we have had on the blogsphere the sort of debate that should have been had at conference. It has got heated and will get even more heated as the date for the court hearing approaches. But it in not a bad thing that we have this debate.
