King's Evangelical Divinity School

3 July 2010

Today's Methodism: Distancing Itself Yet Further From Wesley?

Drawing on a 54-page report produced by a Methodist committee, this week’s Methodist Conference voted to boycott Israeli goods produced in Israeli settlements. The committee included pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel activists (do a search of some of the committee members to get a flavour), and thus predictably the report follows the same somewhat tired, ideologically-driven and polemical pattern of similar reports produced by other Protestant organisations in recent years. Its historical narrative is one-sided, selective and incomplete (since acknowledged by the report’s chair Revd Graham Parker, who cites time constraints) and therefore misleading. Worse, it relies heavily on controversial historian and Israel critic Ilan Pappe.

Meanwhile, while purporting “to help British Methodists understand better some of the complexities that surround the current situation”, the report’s list of recommended books exploring the conflict from a Christian perspective consists of the usual pro-Palestinian Israel critics, namely Naim Ateek, Colin Chapman, Gary Burge and Garth Hewitt. Thus it is clear there is no intention whatsoever to help Methodists understand the complexities of the conflict, but rather just one particularly simplistic view of it. As such, the report represents a top-down strategy, an attempt by intellectual elites (Cadre? Vanguard?) to indoctrinate the proletariat Methodist masses which, given Protestantism’s historical eschewing of hierarchical authority in favour of democratised theological enquiry, is distinctly unProtestant and medieval (to say nothing of cynical). It appears such a strategy is being increasingly exploited by anti-Israel Christians to counter a popular grassroots Christian unease with politicised supercessionism and support for Israel (including among some Methodists I know). Significantly the report relies on the Kairos Palestine Document, authored by Palestinian Christians which likewise does not reflect the divergent views I have personally encountered during fieldwork among grassroots Palestinian Christians (the theological perceptions of Israel among Palestinian Christian are far from homogenous). Again, another document imposing a top-down theology upon the masses.

But why should anyone care what the Methodist Conference has to say about the Arab-Israeli conflict, or indeed any other issue for that matter? After all, reminiscent of some of the off-the-wall motions proposed at past LibDem conferences by a party never quite believing it would really ever secure political power (how things change!), some of the issues discussed at previous Methodist Conferences have been on the periphery. More significant is how some within the denomination's hierarchy have moved firmly away from historical orthodoxy and the proclamation of the gospel, much to the chagrin of Methodist Evangelicals who remain faitful to the gospel. Tragically, such liberalism has arguably resulted in much of this once-great denomination becoming largely irrelevant as a revivalist Christian force, and the Wesley brothers would roll in their graves. So why should it matter what the Methodist Conference votes for?

But an attempt by elites to impose their views upon the rest of the denomination aside, this report and vote do matter, for several reasons. First, in one foul swoop it has caused massive and lasting damage to Jewish-Methodist relations painstakingly developed over many years. Second, this report oversimplifies a hugely important conflict, while its blatant partisan politicking simply adds fuel to the fire, polarising opinion rather than contributing anything constructive. It is deeply ironic that, in the name of peace and justice, this report contributes to neither, but rather the complete opposite. Moreover, given the Church’s chequered history of its relations with the Jewish people, the report merely reinforces the view among many Jews that Christians are inherently suspicious of Israel and the Jewish people (which is actually not the case among millions of Christians who likewise challenge such theology). Most tragic for a Church driven by the need to share the gospel with all peoples is how such an ill-conceived and ideologically-driven polemic makes Jewish evangelism that much more difficult. If some complain that extreme Christian Zionism is theologically unsound, the rabid anti-Israel and politicised supercessionist tones (unlike the less polemical, non-political supercessionism of older Reformed Protestantism) emanating from some Protestants quarters is equally damaging, making it far more difficult to share the gospel with Jewish people. But that shouldn’t really come as any major surprise. After all, Jewish evangelism is quite far down the list of priorities of many of those who demonise Israel. So make no mistake, this issue is not just about boycotting settlement-produced goods, or even seeking a wider total boycott of Israel (which one of the committee members openly calls for - this is clearly a piecemeal strategy). It has far wider ramifications.

But what I found deeply ironic in this whole saga is how the committee’s report draws on John Wesley’s thought in support of its stance on Israel, perhaps unaware that apparently Wesley espoused a distinctly Zionist theology. Consider the words of the hymn Almighty God of Love (especially the last three verses), written by Charles Wesley and endorsed by his brother John:

1. ALMIGHTY God of love,
Set up the attracting sign,
And summon whom thou dost approve
For messengers divine;
From favoured Abraham's seed
The new apostles choose,
In isles and continents to spread
The dead-reviving news.

2. Them, snatched out of the flame,
Through every nation send,
The true Messiah to proclaim,
The universal friend;
That all the God unknown
May learn of Jews to adore,
And see thy glory in thy Son,
Till time shall be no more.

3. O that the chosen band
Might now their brethren bring,
And, gathered out of every land,
Present to Zion's King!
Of all the ancient race
Not one be left behind,
But each, impelled by secret grace,
His way to Canaan find.

4. We know it must be done,
For God hath spoke the word:
All Israel shall the Saviour own,
To their first state restored;
Rebuilt by his command,
Jerusalem shall rise,
Her temple on Moriah stand
Again, and touch the skies.

5. Send then thy servants forth,
To call the Hebrews home;
From East, and West, and South, and North,
Let all the wanderers come;
Where'er in lands unknown
The fugitives remain,
Bid every creature help them on,
Thy holy mount to gain.

6. An offering to their God,
There let them all be seen,
Sprinkled with water and with blood,
In soul and body clean;
With Israel's myriads sealed,
Let all the nations meet,
And show the mystery fulfilled,
Thy family complete! (1)

You don’t get much more Zionist than that. Might this saga be another example of modern Methodism ditching yet more of its Wesleyan roots?


(1) For further discussion of this hymn and revision over time, see a discussion here.

9 comments:

Andrew Sibley said...

I don't know why you find this surprising Calvin. Your average Methodist will be either a social conservative, a liberal or a real socialist. They tend to be very socially aware and into trendy causes - I am not sure it is about an 'intellectual elite' as the average methodist is probably well educated in some arty, social type of subject anyway.

As for Protestantism and authority. Luther was very authoritarian, in fact his insistence that 'when you obey me you obey Christ' was one factor in the German psyche that allowed Hitler to gain acceptance according to Weiner's wartime 'Win the Peace' pamphlet on Luther and Hitler. http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html

Calvin too was quite authoritarian. Evangelicalism tends to be much less authoritarian, but that can lead to splintering i.e. with the Pentecostals, Brethren, Charismatics etc.

I share you concern about politicising the gospel because it can turn the grace of God into humanistic social progress. I heard Garth Hewitt at an evangelism/worship concert in Devon many years ago and he was very much into political concern, with little worship, evangelism etc., which disappointed me greatly. However, strip out the socialism and politics and we still have questions about justice and morality. If methodists believe that land has been stolen in Palestine, then to buy goods grown on stolen ground would be to partake in that theft by receiving the benefit of stolen property and would break the 8th commandment. So you can make a moral case for refusing to buy goods grown on stolen land.

Of course Christian Zionists don't believe the land is stolen thinking instead that God has given it to Jews in Israel. But Christian Zionism is very politicised i.e.www.cfi.org.uk http://www.isrelate.com/ with some organisations teaching questionable theology. The idea of a grassroots movement in support of Israel is really not correct, it is supported and promoted by well organised groups. One CFI April In Touch article suggests that God's Spirit is working out from the Jews even though they are not yet in Christ (consider this in light of John 15). Israelate promote Hagee's book that suggest Jews do not need to come to Christ. I wish Christian Zionists were better at putting their own theological house in order, perhaps then I wouldn't have bothered getting into this area and would have stayed in creation/evolution.

I am not sure this document will make much difference to Jewish evangelism. As you know many Jews even rejected the evangelism of Jesus so what hope do we have without a direct move of God's spirit. We also make the mistake of thinking we should support one side over another for the sake of the gospel, the same problem arose over Serbia and Kosovo, where one Albanian evangelical group called for the bombing of Serbia as if Serbs were less than human. There are many good Christians in Serbia and it is multi-ethnic.

As for Wesley's hymn - I can interpret it entirely within a covenantal theology based on Romans 9-11 where Jews will be brought into the Church.

Stuart said...

Andrew Sibley said:

I am not sure this document will make much difference to Jewish evangelism. As you know many Jews even rejected the evangelism of Jesus so what hope do we have without a direct move of God's spirit.

What an unkind and flawed attitude!

What, are Jews beyond the pale?

Got some news for you Andrew. If it wasn't for those Jews that accepted Christ, you wouldn't have a "faith" to bleat on about.

Perhaps if there were not such folk as you, we could get about our business, hand in hand with the Jewish people, and not await your "move of God"..

Jesus sent us! We are the move of God. Get a grip.

Chris said...

Dear Stuart, that is one of the most refreshing things I have read in a long time and so succint! thank you, from Chris

Andrew Sibley said...

Stuart - I was simply expressing the message of Paul in Romans 11:25-26 that these things are in God's sovereign plan - there was nothing unkind about my comment.

"Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved..."

How can Jews, or anyone, be born again without a move of the Holy Spirit?

David Williams said...

Hi Calvin,

I think that Andrew makes a valid point that the ‘average Methodist will be either a social conservative, a liberal or a real socialist’ and consequently perhaps indeed no one should be surprised with such a report and the subsequent Methodist vote to boycott products from Israeli ‘disputed territories’. The tendency to be ‘very socially aware and into trendy causes’ does however raise an important question for me; that is, given this ‘social awareness’ why there appears to be a lack of calls for a boycott of any description of any other country. After all, I am sure human rights abuses do occur in other parts of the world too.

Yet no other situation in the world is singled out in the manner that Israel is. I read recently of 2.3 million Christians slaughtered in open genocide by Islamic Arab militias in Sudan over recent years and of further atrocities and genocide in Sudan. One thinks of churches being burned in Egypt with impunity, converts to Christ imprisoned in Jordan whilst others are imprisoned, hung or beheaded in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Strangely I have read or heard nothing from the Methodist Church on these or other tragic situations. In fact Robin Shepherd commenting in Monday’s Jerusalem Post on the boycott vote makes the point that not only did the Methodist Church not consider boycotting say Sudan or Iran or Saudi Arabia for their human rights abuses, but he highlights Reverend Carter’s comments that the only countries they considered levying a boycott on, other than Israel, were Britain and America for the temerity of having relations with Israel.

We are led to believe that the issue so critical here is that of ‘stolen ground’. Yet I fail to find any boycott of say Saudi Arabia, which built a concrete wall approx 45 miles long with the intention of preventing Yemenite infiltration into the country. Little regard was or is given to the anger of local Yemenite tribes denouncing the reduction along the wall’s length of Yemenite territory by 4 miles or the subsequent hardship this has brought. No world opinion to be found screaming about this injustice and I suspect we will wait a long time for any proposed boycott either. This perhaps correlates with Andrew’s assertion that not only is the Methodist Church ‘socially aware’ but crucially perhaps it is the chasing of ‘trendy causes’ moniker which is most revealing here.

Does any of this make any difference to Jewish Evangelism? Well the short answer is that it will certainly not provide any assistance. Caroline Glick in Wednesday’s Jerusalem Post picks up on Robin Shepherd’s earlier comments that Israel should fight fire with fire. In Shepherd’s words, “If the Methodist Church is to launch a boycott of Israel, let Israel respond in kind: Ban their officials from entering; deport their missionaries; block their church-funds; close down their offices; and tax their churches. If it’s war, it’s war, the aggressor must pay a price.” Glick understandably from a Jewish perspective finds these comments ‘eminently reasonable’ and it is difficult to disagree. The cause of Jewish Evangelism could indeed in my view, be demonstrably set back by such a boycott, should Israel respond in kind.

David

David Williams said...

Hi Calvin,

I think that Andrew makes a valid point that the ‘average Methodist will be either a social conservative, a liberal or a real socialist’ and consequently perhaps indeed no one should be surprised with such a report and the subsequent Methodist vote to boycott products from Israeli ‘disputed territories’. The tendency to be ‘very socially aware and into trendy causes’ does however raise an important question for me; that is, given this ‘social awareness’ why there appears to be a lack of calls for a boycott of any description of any other country. After all, I am sure human rights abuses do occur in other parts of the world too.

Yet no other situation in the world is singled out in the manner that Israel is. I read recently of 2.3 million Christians slaughtered in open genocide by Islamic Arab militias in Sudan over recent years and of further atrocities and genocide in Sudan. One thinks of churches being burned in Egypt with impunity, converts to Christ imprisoned in Jordan whilst others are imprisoned, hung or beheaded in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Strangely I have read or heard nothing from the Methodist Church on these or other tragic situations. In fact Robin Shepherd commenting in Monday’s Jerusalem Post on the boycott vote makes the point that not only did the Methodist Church not consider boycotting say Sudan or Iran or Saudi Arabia for their human rights abuses, but he highlights Reverend Carter’s comments that the only countries they considered levying a boycott on, other than Israel, were Britain and America for the temerity of having relations with Israel.

We are led to believe that the issue so critical here is that of ‘stolen ground’. Yet I fail to find any boycott of say Saudi Arabia, which built a concrete wall approx 45 miles long with the intention of preventing Yemenite infiltration into the country. Little regard was or is given to the anger of local Yemenite tribes denouncing the reduction along the wall’s length of Yemenite territory by 4 miles or the subsequent hardship this has brought. No world opinion to be found screaming about this injustice and I suspect we will wait a long time for any proposed boycott either. This perhaps correlates with Andrew’s assertion that not only is the Methodist Church ‘socially aware’ but crucially perhaps it is the chasing of ‘trendy causes’ moniker which is most revealing here.

Does any of this make any difference to Jewish Evangelism? Well the short answer is that it will certainly not provide any assistance. Caroline Glick in Wednesday’s Jerusalem Post picks up on Robin Shepherd’s earlier comments that Israel should fight fire with fire. In Shepherd’s words, “If the Methodist Church is to launch a boycott of Israel, let Israel respond in kind: Ban their officials from entering; deport their missionaries; block their church-funds; close down their offices; and tax their churches. If it’s war, it’s war, the aggressor must pay a price.” Glick understandably from a Jewish perspective finds these comments ‘eminently reasonable’ and it is difficult to disagree. The cause of Jewish Evangelism could indeed in my view, be demonstrably set back by such a boycott, should Israel respond in kind.

David

Stuart said...

@David, that to me was an excellent comment which really struck at the heart of the issue, namely:

...why there appears to be a lack of calls for a boycott of any description of any other country.

Why indeed David. It is this disproportionate vilification of Israel in particular, that sticks in my throat.

And, in relation to the response from the jeiwsh community, we had this sad, but inevitable, development today:

The Board of Deputies has broken off all contact with the leadership of the Methodist Church

It takes little imagination to surmise the impact on Jewish evangelism....

Calvin L. Smith said...

Andrew, yes, Calvin especially was somewhat dictatorial (exceptions to every rule), but in general Protestantism is less authoritarian. Concerning Methodists, I agree with much of your analysis. However, I have spoken at many Methodist churches over the years and I have come across many of the masses who accept the wisdom of the hierarchy. I also come across others who despair at the Methodist leadership/Conference.

Concerning Jewish evangelism and other points you made, I was going to respond to several of these (from experience I do feel the constant anti-Israel/Christian Zionism slant has an important bearing on Jewish evangelism), but David's eloquent comment today on several issues really means I don't need to bother. David, some interesting points made here. Thank you.

Philip said...

Andrew, I just wanted to congratulate you on your comments. Well said!