Some months ago the interfaith Council of Christians and Jews issued a statement criticising Anglican vicar Revd Dr Stephen Sizer for linking to anti-Semitic websites (detailed here). The matter was brought to the attention of the police but was not taken any further. Since then, however, further claims have been levelled against Revd Sizer and covered by several newspapers.
Over the weekend the issue was raised again at the national level, this time by Archbishop Cranmer, a widely-read UK political blog. Cranmer published a letter to the South East Gospel Partnership written by Revd Nick Howard (son of the former Tory leader Michael Howard) and James Mendelsohn, a senior law lecturer at Huddersfield University, in which they set out why they believe Revd Sizer to be anti-Semitic and call for the evangelistic partnership to disassociate itself from him. It is a serious charge and merits careful scrutiny.
This latest event in a long-running saga raises two important points.
Anti-Semitism aside for the moment, there is little doubt Stephen is strongly anti-Israel (consider his association with some of these people, hardly Israel's champions), which raises a second issue: that there is now more than ever a serious debate to be had within the church concerning at what stage anti-Israel sentiment and activity spills over into anti-Semitism.
Israel should not, of course, be excluded from criticism. Far from it. Yet it is vital to note that the State of Israel constitutes approximately 50% of all the world's Jews. Moreover, Israel is a Jewish state, established as a safe haven for Jews in the wake of a European Holocaust that led to the extermination of six million Jews. As such, any criticism of the Jewish State must reflect and be sensitive to these realities. Thus comparing, for example, Israel to Nazi Germany, or Gaza with the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust, or the IDF with Herod's soldiers, are surely odious and cross a line Christians claiming to be peacemakers should not be crossing.
If Christians on both sides of the debate are to engage with and discuss the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a theological perspective seriously, rather than simply shouting at each other from the sidelines, we desperately need some ground rules setting out the nature of what is and is not acceptable anti-Israel rhetoric and activism.
Recently I met with Stephen to discuss various issues, and raised the above points with him unequivocally, so this isn't about me taking a potshot from behind the safety of a blog. What is increasingly clear is that the accusations of anti-Semitism are not going to subside and Stephen will eventually have to debate his critics publicly, not through a blog or sympathetic forums, but in a critical environment (if even for his own sake). For the wider church, however, there is still time to discuss in private and reach a settlement on how to carry out a quality and nuanced debate that does not draw on unacceptable anti-Israel rhetoric and activism leading to accusations of anti-Semitism. The Church has too long and shameful a history of its treatment of the Jewish people to permit that.
45 comments:
Thanks for this Calvin.
"In short, there is going to have to be a stage at which Stephen confronts and debates his critics publicly."
To be more specific, there is going to have to be a point at which Rev Sizer engages point-by-point with the charges levelled at him by Nick Howard on 27 December. That piece is available here:
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/12/27/rev-nick-howard-the-church-of-england-must-take-action-against-rev-stephen-sizer/
It is worth noting that nearly seven months since that piece was written, not a single piece of Nick's evidence or logic has been refuted, despite (for example) one of Rev Sizer's defenders being challenged to do in the comments to this piece:
http://www.calvinlsmith.com/2011/12/former-tory-leaders-son-on-anglican.html
So it seems to me that British evangelicals have three choices:
(a) refute the charge in a specific, point-by-point manner; or
(b) acknowledge that the charge is justified, and act accordingly; or
(c) do nothing.
It remains to be seen which choice they will make.
It is regrettable that the Rev Nick Howard, and Cranmer with his blog, should involve the South East Gospel Partnership in this ongoing politically motivated campaign against Stephen Sizer. Why now pick on the SEGP?
There are of course proper disciplinary avenues within the Church that need to be followed before one disassociates with brethren. But if one has been through this process, apologised for any inadvertent errors, and exonerated by one’s own Bishop, then that should be the end of the matter. Howard's campaign though bypasses these proper channels and seeks to divide Christians – and the SEGP is attacked by Cranmer for upholding its Christian duty to remain in fellowship.
The SEGP doctrinal statement reads as follows “The only holy universal church is the Body of Christ, to which all true believers belong. The Church's calling is to worship and serve God in the world, to proclaim and defend his truth, to exhibit his character and to demonstrate the reality of his new order. The unity of the body of Christ is expressed within and between local churches by mutual love, care, correction and encouragement in accordance with the Bible. Fellowship within and between local churches is truly Christian fellowship insofar as they are faithful to Christ and his gospel.”
Ironically, Cranmer on the 20th July sought to defend evangelical Christians against liberal attacks, so why a few days later does he slander the SEGP by suggesting they tolerate anti-Semitism?
What an entirely predictable response from Andrew Sibley.
When Nick Howard first published his critique of Stephen Sizer's views on 27 December, Andrew insinuated that Nick was part of a secret evil Zionist Tory cabal which works for Israel. He also accused Nick of "mudslinging", even though every single criticism Nick made was backed up with hard evidence, usually in th form of a link to Sizer's own website. I asked Andrew at the time to explain where he thought Nick's evidence was wanting. Nearly seven months on, we are still waiting for Andrew's reply. (see the comments thread at
http://www.calvinlsmith.com/2011/12/former-tory-leaders-son-on-anglican.html)
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Andrew is deliberately closing his eyes to the evidence.
Sibley has a vested interest in supporting Sizer & defending evangelicals like himself who are enabling the increasingly shrill voice of unfettered anti-Israel prejudice in British churches dressed up as concern for justice for Palestinians.
It's very important to maintain a distinction between criticism of Israel and Israeli policies (ideology) and anti-semitism. Much of what passes as anti-semitism these days, it seems to me, is special pleading by hyper-sensitive conservatives with a massive agenda who just happen to have the ear of those currently in power.
I thought Sizer appeared reasonably open-minded and generally positive toward the Jewish people in your debate. This anti-semitism stuff is all very strange and Sizer should certainly come forward and make a clear and positive statement but, in my view, he should be given the benefit of the doubt as far as possible.
James - I have better things to do than to respond in detail to this sort of thing - but a lot of Howard's allegations are non-sequiturs - i.e. the conclusion does not follow from the initial premise - so to post a link to an anti-semitic website, or even to post an article from such a website, or to appear on certain TV channels, does not make one anti-semitic - it may or may not be wise, but does not prove anti-semitism. To be anti-semitic you would need to have an intention to encourage hatred towards Jews which is not proven.
Secondly, some of the other evidence about associating with certain Israeli Arabs seems to me suspect - not that I would be as trusting as Sizer regarding the motives of some Islamic groups, but some may not trust the allegations against Israeli Arabs because they are seen as politically motivated to silence Palestinian dissent.
Another example of a non-sequitur - Howard writes this 'Yet sadly Dr Sizer's word cannot be trusted. This was proven when he recently insisted that the first time he was alerted to the presence of a link to a racist website on his Facebook page was on 3rd January.' That seems to me more a case of forgetfulness than telling lies. Given an opportunity to offer Sizer the benefit of the doubt, Howard chooses to slander a fellow Anglican minister. Why? - And how does this reflect Christian love for one's brother?
Now concerning the link between Christian zionism, right wing politicans and support for Israel. I could point to Hagee and Netanyahu sharing a platform at a CUFI meeting where Hagee suggested Netanyahu is a Messiah figure, or like Moses - to Christian applause.
To Nev:
"It's very important to maintain a distinction between criticism of Israel and Israeli policies (ideology) and anti-semitism."
I quite agree, and would be surprised to find any serious commentator who thought otherwise.
"Much of what passes as anti-semitism these days, it seems to me, is special pleading by hyper-sensitive conservatives with a massive agenda who just happen to have the ear of those currently in power."
Can you please give some specific examples?
An "ongoing politically-motivated campaign".
Andrew, could you please elaborate. The issue at stake is, of course, thoroughly political in nature, so readers may be unsure what you're getting at.
Do you mean as Christians we should not be getting involved in politics, or that the letter published by Cranmer is driven by political rather than theological considerations, or that Cranmer is espousing the wrong kind of politics, or maybe something else? Your comment seems to question the motives of those who have spoken out, so therefore some clarification would be helpful.
To Andrew:
“James - I have better things to do than to respond in detail to this sort of thing - but a lot of Howard's allegations are non-sequiturs - i.e. the conclusion does not follow from the initial premise - so to post a link to an anti-semitic website, or even to post an article from such a website, or to appear on certain TV channels, does not make one anti-semitic - it may or may not be wise, but does not prove anti-semitism. To be anti-semitic you would need to have an intention to encourage hatred towards Jews which is not proven.”
But as you well know Andrew, those weren’t the only pieces of evidence marshalled by Nick Howard. Other examples included insinuating Israeli complicity in 9/11, describing Israeli soldiers as “Herod’s soldiers operating in Bethlehem today”, making distasteful allusions to Monica Lewinsky’s Jewishness, promoting a boycott of multinational companies on the basis that they “channel their profits to the Zionist agenda”, comparing Israeli policies with the Holocaust, stating that the US Congress supports Israel because “the Israel lobby buys every single politician”, and making the inflammatory false accusation that “the Far Right in Britain is forming an alliance with Zionists because their common enemy are the Muslims.” Are you going to try and defend all those statements as well?
“Secondly, some of the other evidence about associating with certain Israeli Arabs seems to me suspect - not that I would be as trusting as Sizer regarding the motives of some Islamic groups, but some may not trust the allegations against Israeli Arabs because they are seen as politically motivated to silence Palestinian dissent.”
Again , Andrew, as you well know, Nick Howard did not simply accuse Sizer of merely “associating” with “certain Israeli Arabs”, he pointed out that Sizer had given his unequivocal support to Sheikh Raed Selah, an Islamist hate preacher and convicted fundraiser for Hamas, whilst at the same time calling for the arrest of the Israeli centrist Tzivi Lipni. Are you going to try to defend that obvious double standard as well?
“Another example of a non-sequitur - Howard writes this 'Yet sadly Dr Sizer's word cannot be trusted. This was proven when he recently insisted that the first time he was alerted to the presence of a link to a racist website on his Facebook page was on 3rd January.' That seems to me more a case of forgetfulness than telling lies. Given an opportunity to offer Sizer the benefit of the doubt, Howard chooses to slander a fellow Anglican minister. Why? - And how does this reflect Christian love for one's brother?”
Because, if you were to read the next two sentences, you would see that the Diocese of Guildford, confirmed that Sizer acknowledged receipt of a complaint about that same link on 22nd November. You might also evaluate the various contradictory explanations issued by Rev Sizer for the delay in removing the link – see http://hurryupharry.org/2012/05/02/stephen-sizer-the-unanswered-questions/ Are you going to try and defend those as well?
“Now concerning the link between Christian zionism, right wing politicans and support for Israel. I could point to Hagee and Netanyahu sharing a platform at a CUFI meeting where Hagee suggested Netanyahu is a Messiah figure, or like Moses - to Christian applause.”
Your exact words on 28 December were “One may also ask about links with some in the Conservative Party here and known work (i.e.Fox-Werrity affair) to support the State of Israel.” i.e. not an allusion to American right wing politicians, but a none-too-subtle allusion to Nick Howard’s family ties to the UK conservative party. A shameful insinuation that Nick Howard is part of some secret Zionist Tory cabal, an insinuation which you would do well to withdraw.
James - I don't recall using the words 'evil' 'secret' 'cabal' in relation to this - they are your words not mine. I simply pointed to evidence published in the Telegraph and Guardian and elsewhere that a leading Tory Defence government minister and advisor were linked financially to groups that lobby for Israel - to the point where people had to resign. Read it for yourself. One may wonder the reason, but it looked like an attempt to bring Israeli influence into the UK government defence policy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8826133/Adam-Werritty-Liam-Foxs-friend-bankrolled-by-corporate-intelligence-firm-and-Israel-lobbyist.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/14/liam-fox-final-straw-was-money-trail
I know very little about Rev Nick Howard or his political views, but he has used Cranmer, a Tory Anglican blogger, to post a letter that seeks to pressure the SEGP to distance itself from Sizer on the basis of accusations of anti-semitism. Use of Cranmer's blog suggests to me it is a 'politically motivated campaign' from the right to try and silence voices that call for peace, justice and reconcilliation in Israel-Palestine.
Calvin asked - 'Do you mean as Christians we should not be getting involved in politics, or that the letter published by Cranmer is driven by political rather than theological considerations, or that Cranmer is espousing the wrong kind of politics, or maybe something else? Your comment seems to question the motives of those who have spoken out, so therefore some clarification would be helpful.'
Calvin - yes, of course both sides are politically motivated, although I would prefer to focus upon the theology, but this campaign seems to be using the charge of anti-semitism as a stick to silence legitimate criticism of Israel and divide Christians in a wrongful manner. My view of politicians on all sides is one of disillusionment - if that is a word. Of course the Christian voice must overlap with politics, but really we need to stand aside and offer a balanced and hopefully prophetic voice.
"Use of Cranmer's blog suggests to me it is a politically-motivated campaign from the right".
Andrew, Nick Howard first raised this issue on Harry's Place, a blog firmly on the political left.
Andrew,
I have a simple question for you.
In his original post on the left-wing blog Harry's Place on 27 Dec, Nick Howard wrote this:
"It would have been perfectly possible for Stephen Sizer to criticise Israel without posting links on Facebook to racist websites; or joining forces with recognised anti-Semites across the world; or, when accused of anti-Semitism, turning to a known anti-Semite for support; or alluding to the archetype of the Christ-killing Jew; or downplaying the Holocaust by using the same word to describe Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians; or promoting the global Zionist conspiracy myth; or endorsing a disgraced journalist’s call for Jews to ‘get the hell out of Palestine’; or spreading the outrageous myth of Israeli involvement in 9/11; or making distasteful references to Monica Lewinsky’s Jewishness; or backing the anti-Semitic hate preacher Sheikh Salah."
Do you consider those to be examples of "legitimate criticism of Israel"?
Andrew,
I am neither an expert on these issues and I consider myself very similar to MOses "slow of speech and slow of tongue", though I think those who know me would disagree with that.
Evangelical Christian unity must remain of course, for we are under a worrying liberal agenda much of the time. HOWEVER, I fear so many evangelicals including Rev'd Sizer go even further than the ROman church that the apostle Paul wrote to. They, as you know I'm sure, were getting their theology so far off the truth that Paul had to give three long chapters about God's love and use of the Jewish people (chapters 9-11 of course). The evangelical church in the UK (and further afield too), do you not agree, would receive far sterner a letter from Paul if he was alive today? It is this awful evangelical pride that I hate; oh suddenly the gospel belongs to the gentiles and the Jews are no longer relevant and important. The apple of God's eye suddenly changed has it? At what point? The Cross? The resurrection? The Spirit's coming at Pentecost? Peter and COrnelius from ACts 10? You say let's concentrate on the theology, but if we had a correct grasp of the theology then we would not be in a position to claim anti-Semitic, anti-Israel sentiment to be with us united.
God has always called for humility and yet again the church is showing a distinct lack of it. One of my biggest desires in my life is to make Yeshua known to Jewish people, but how can I expect them to see the truth of the Messiah when we as evangelicals mollycoddle such dangerous rhetoric for the sake of 'evangelical brotherhood'.
Why do we forget God when He says, 'those who bless you I will bless, and those who curse you I will curse'. That's theology - Scripture - what we say we follow! We must not just eradicate ungodliness but we must have such a love for people, especially those we consider our brothers and sisters, that we should warn them against, and very strongly to, such a theology becuase it goes against the heart of the Lord. "The gifts and CALLING of God ARE IRREVOCABLE".
Forgive me for my long shpeel, but this is sent in love, but also in hurt and anguish that as Christians, with Scripture's warnings in front of us, we decide unity and unity first before what the Lord says. Israel is not perfect, there is no Heaven without Jesus, but God is not finished with the Jews, and we should love them, because as Paul says, "to them was given the patriachs, prophets, Scriptures" and so much more, so just as in the time of the Judges when hardly any of the Israelites followed God, He kept a remnant and then brought them back to Himself as a nation time and time again, so will He do it again. And woe to them that abuse 'the apple of God's eye'.
Calvin, I appreciate your reasoned voice on these issues.
I hold to Reformed covenant theology so I'm not a Christian Zionist, but I am troubled by many of Sizer's actions and associations, such as those documented by Rev. Nick Howard.
Sadly, Sizer's "payback for Monica" post is still up:
http://stephensizer.blogspot.com/2010/03/payback-for-monica-clinton-rebukes.html
JB - you are right that we need to be humble and show God's love to Jews, and Gentiles. But the theology of replacement is not something I recognise. Instead the Church exists in continuity with biblical Israel where Christ is the King of Israel, and the apostles were Jews who preached to Jews first. Gentiles were later grafted in and the blessings of Abraham were transferred to them also because they entered into Christ and received the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:14) - But I don't know why some Christian Zionists seek to place a curse on fellow Christians relating to the modern State of Israel from Abraham's 7 fold blessing. Abraham's blessing was ultimately about blessing all nations.
You also quote the apple of God's eye from Zechariah 2:8. But read the chapter's 13 verses. 'Jerusalem will be an immeasurable city without walls because of its great number of people and animals in it (v4). God will be its wall of fire (vs 6-7). It speaks of the restoration of the scattered Israelites in Assyria 'Flee from the land of the north' - compare with Hosea 1-3. And the Babylonian exiles too need to escape into the city without walls. In vs 10-13 we see that God will come and live amongst them, and 'Many nations will be joined with the Lord in that day and will be my people (v11).' In verse 12 it does speak of inheriting Judah in the Holy Land and choosing Jerusalem, but all mankind is told to be still before God. I believe this chapter is speaking of the new Jerusalem, a city without walls, that may include all those Palestinian Christians and Messianic Jews living in the Holy Land, but spreads across the world.
Andrew, please answer the question I asked you at 10:26 on 24 July. Thanks.
Nicholas, thank you for your comment, which is appreciated. If you felt able and willing, you could usefully email your concerns about Rev Sizer to the Chair of the Committee South East Gospel Partnership at info@segp.org.uk
Very disappointing that you are dragging the SEGP into this Calvin. SEGP is completely non-political. WT and RC for example quite regularly refuse to be involved in politics, quite different from organisations like Anglican Mainstream.
"very disappointing that you are dragging the SEGP into this Calvin".
I haven't dragged the SEGP into anything, Philip. I've commented on a public issue raised by one of the UK's top political blogs. Indeed, other than mentioning the SEGP once for context, my comment discusses something else completely. Are you sure you read what I wrote?
Fair enough. It is very disappointing that SEGP was dragged into this by the two authors. And disappointing that you give credence to it.
Have they any idea what SEGP is? Did they just google Christian organisations they could write to? It would be a bit like me complaining to Wolverhampton University if I had an issue with you. That is, really dumb. That they select SEGP as a target does not speak highly of their motives, alas.
Spare me your self-righteous disappointment, Philip (not the first time). Either deal with the substance of what I wrote, or the letter published by Cranmer (or both). I'm quite sure they will gladly respond to any questions you have.
James - I have no desire to play this type of game - so my answer is 'no' I won't respond to your question, and I wonder why you think I should?
Andrew, why is it a game when someone asks you to provide more details on a subject you seems to have plenty to say about? Why invest someones motives in such a negative way. It seems to me, that you have something to hide be not answering and them categorizing the questioner as a game-player!
Richard
Phillip - Sizer's church is affilated to the SEGP.
Andrew - because it goes to heart of the matter. Every single Jewish person I can think of would consider that those statements to go way beyond legitimate criticism of Israel into outright antisemitism. If that is correct, then the person who made those statements, Stephen Sizer, is anti-Semitic. Why are you so reluctant to answer such a simple question?
Calvin, if me mentioning that a commitment to proclaiming the gospel is an uppermost part of the Christian faith makes you tetchy, then I can hardly be blamed for that.
James, as I said, SEGP is a quite openly non-political body. Insinuations about anti-Semitism in the Christian church in general are, to use my alleged catchphrase, disappointing. When was the first that you heard about SEGP? Given that you write, 'Among the many people and organisations who have declined to take action against the anti-Semitism of Rev. Dr Stephen Sizer is a group called the South East Gospel Partnership,' why did you choose to make this particular letter public?
Phillip
(a) "Insinuations about anti-Semitism in the Christian church in general are... disappointing."
Unless they are based on hard and solid evidence, in which case they aren't "insinuations" at all. What do you make of the evidence, Phillip?
(b) "When was the first that you heard about SEGP?"
When it was first set up.
(c)"why did you choose to make this particular letter public?"
We explain why in the final two paragraphs of the letter.
James and Richard - why do I think this is a game? Because it is like a witch hunt, or entrapment, where a person's every word is scrutinised so they can be silenced by accusations of anti-Semitism. Why should I want to play such a game with you? The real 'crime' is to challenge the State of Israel in its action against the Palestinian people in terms of forcing them out of homes and off their land etc. Not that it is believed that all Jews should be forced out of the Holy Land, but the desire is to build peace, justice and recocilliation for both communities. But we have here some Christian zionists creating a climate of fear, allowing fellow believers and the gospel to be slandered, and seeking to divide Christians along un-scriptural lines.
Consider Helen Thomas, she made an off-the-cuff comment in an unplanned interview that Jews should 'get the hell out of Palestine' and even though she later apologised, this 90 year old Arab woman was bullied out of her job; 'Expelled' to quote Ben Stein. The words you want me to respond to James, call her a 'disgrace'. Do we not have a Christian duty to forgive her?
Consider Raed Salah's case. He was aquitted by a UK court http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/09/theresa-may-raed-salah-ban. Now I don't know the truth of the matter here as I have not studied it in sufficient depth, and it isn't for me to defend or charge him, but there is at least an element of doubt about what is true - again the words here call him an 'anti-Semitic hate preacher.' Is that really sustainable on the balance of evidence?
I am reminded of the words of Titus 3 which are for all of us. 'Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.'
"Calvin, if me mentioning that a commitment to proclaiming the gospel is an uppermost part of the Christian faith makes you tetchy, then I can hardly be blamed for that."
Huh? Not tetchy, but must admit to being somewhat nonplussed. Like your first comment, you're not making much sense (when did I say, or imply, this?) I know these issues create passion, but try to be a little less emotional and slightly more objective. The only person who has been tetchy (sorry, "disappointed"), was you, as if somehow I had done something naughty.
Given you seem to be suggesting I have some issue with the gospel, I absolutely agree it shouldn't be political. Unfortunately, it is. Stephen is on record - repeatedly - stating that those believing God has brought the Jewish people back to the land preach another Gospel and have repudiated Jesus. I'm sure you will agree this is unfortunate (as I have told him several times). After all, myself and many others don't make this issue a test of orthodoxy, so why should he?
Perhaps, therefore, you should address your concerns about the politicisation of the Gospel to Stephen directly. As far as SEGP are concerned I have made absolutely no judgement. But now you come to insist on the centrality of the Gospel, perhaps there is an issue to discuss, namely, where one partnership member insists that the Gospel must include a denunciation of the view God may have brought them back to the land. Given your disappointment about the politicisation of the Gospel, don't you think this issue is worthy if address? Or is the politicisation of the Gospel only problematic when it is the "wrong kind" of politics? Maybe this issue should be brought to SEGP's attention, which I'm sure might be if interest.
But of course, with you it's not about the Gospel, is it? I cannot help but think, after three years of anti-Israel comments on this blog, it is about something else.
Philip, you advise a good old fashioned church cover-up? We are not freemasons you know, well I'm not (wink, nod, rolled-up trouser leg!)
Richard
James -
(a) My comment was about the Christian church in general, not the Sizer incident in particular. For example, you wrote: 'The history of the Christian church has repeatedly been stained by anti-Semitism. Our prayer is that in this case the church will take redemptive action.' Presumably you think Sizer is an anti-Semite. Presumably you are trying to convince people of this. Raising past anti-Semitism of the 'Christian Church' seems an odd way to do this, unless you are trying to either exert emotional pressure or allege current anti-Semtism in the church in general. Calvin reminds us, 'I know these issues create passion, but try to be a little less emotional and slightly more objective.'
(b) When was that? Out of curiosity, are you a follower of Jesus?
(c) This doesn't answer my question, but perhaps that's because I don't explain myself very well. You explain why you have made this letter public. What I was asking is why you chose to publish this letter to SEGP and not the others that you wrote to other organisations?
Calvin -
'Spare me your self-righteous disappointment, Philip (not the first time).' That was your first line. Terse, un-friendly, tetchy, I could go on. Perhaps you didn't mean it to be so, but there you have it. However, given that you have been pleasant to me in the past, particularly your email late 2010, I'm happy to assume that you didn't mean to be un-friendly.
There are many people out there who say that for Jews to be saved, they don't need to put their faith in Jesus, rather to follow the Mosaic covenant law. This is wrong, and it is also quite iniquitous. And it is not wrong to say so. People who think that God has brought the Jews back to the Levant have not repudiated Jesus, unless, of course, they do exactly that. Some do some don't. I don't have an idea of the balance,but I truly hope it's a tiny minority that preach two ways to salvation. Does Stephen S make this a test of orthodoxy? If you say so, you've met the man and presumably asked him the yes / no question.
As for politicisation, I don't think that any politicisation of the gospel is good (hence why SEGP's stance of being non-political, not interfering in issues of gay marraige, etc.) is so great. If godless people want a godless state, and they form a majority, well, that's their right, so long as they don't impose on others. It endlessly frustrates me that some Christians argue that you have to vote Labour to show you're a caring person. Well, that's utter rubbish, but as long as they don't make the Gospel contingent on it, that's their right.
Finally, yes, if you want to bring that isse to the SEGP, then do. It's a very important one. If one is doing that, I'm sure they'd take it seriously.
Oh, and as a postscript, you write, 'with you it's not about the Gospel, is it? I cannot help but think, after three years of anti-Israel comments on this blog, it is about something else.' First of all, please define precisely what you mean by 'anti-Israel'. Then please show me where I have made any such comments. Third, please clarify what you mean by 'it is about something else'. Specifically, please clarify that you are not accusing me of anti-Semitism in any way, shape or form. I think that's only fair.
Philip, you are making this worse.
"Are you a follower of Jesus?" To ask this of a Jewish believer expressing frustration at Western Christian anti-Israelism often spilling into anti-Semitism represents either complete ignorance or a refusal to deal with an issue which has reasserted itself throughout the Church's history.
Neither have you dealt with my response, elicited in direct response to the issues you raise, concerning the politicisation of the Gospel. Please stop moving the goalposts. You opined strongly and morally about the politicisation of the Gospel, so in response to what I wrote please respond.
Moreover, in one past comment you've (admirably) come down hard on racism. So I'm struggling to understand why, in this instance, you won't deal with the substance of the claim (whether the authors are correct or not), of anti-Semitism. Or is anti-Semitism not quite as bad as other forms of prejudice? Again, aren't you simply expressing longstanding ultra anti-Israel views, rather than being objective?
Philip, our comments seem to have "crossed in the post". Some thoughts in response.
1. In the past you have sometimes expressed moral superiority, disappointment and (in this thread) spiritual outrage in lieu of aguments. Not the objective Philip I've seen in some threads, which is why, when it happens, it stands out all the more. Not tetchy, just fed-up with inconsistency and "whataboutery" driven by ideology.
2. Re politicisation of the Gospel: you made a big deal of this. Will you now put the record straight concerning Stephen equating Zionism with preaching another Gospel?
3. Anti-Israel? Readers are free to look through your many statements to this effect. They will see this was a rather silly comment.
4. Regarding anti-Semitism, when did I accuse you of this? (indeed I have not accused Stephen of it). My point was it seems to be less important than other forms of prejudice. So I look forward to your retraction of that mildly slanderous statement.
Calvin and James -
Re my comment, 'are you a follower of Jesus?' I don't ask this is a doubting way. Rather, I have no idea who James Mendelsohn is, and it would change the way that I reasoned with him depending which way he answers. As things stand, all I know about James Mendelsohn is that he is a law lecturer.
I apologise if this was seen as an accusation, rather than as a genuine question.
Calvin -
I will respond to your two emails, though I have already dealt with your first point.
Anti-Semitism is as bad (neither better nor worse, but just the same) as all other forms of race prejudice.
You say, 'Again, aren't you simply expressing longstanding ultra anti-Israel views, rather than being objective?' Where have I done this? On this particular blog post or another? Please explain what you mean by 'ultra anti-Israel views,' especially how it differes from 'anti-Israel comments,' you reference before. Yes, I won't come down on Stehpen S because, superficially at least, I don't believe that he is anti-Semitic. If I thought he were I would absolutely come down hard on him for being so. I have discussed the issue with Jewish friends and they feel the same. Not a perfect resolution, perhaps, but I'm not prepared to call Stephen S an anti-Semite, even if fuddy-duddies like 'Archbishop Cranmer' are.
If you are upset by my moral superiority, spiritual outrage, etc. I'm sorry for that. Let's call it quits, since I find some of your comments patronising towards me! Moreover, I find that you are reluctant to engage me on theological issues, which I find frustrating.
Re politicisation of the gospel. I'm not convinced that Stephen S quates Zionism with preaching another gospel. As I said, presumably you've asked him his view and can tell us what he said. As far as I'm concerned, there's only one gospel, that's the gosepl of repentence, of taking up your cross, and following Jesus.
(Incidentally, Zionism and anti-Zionism are such nebulous terms and so ill-defined in so-called polite debate, that I try not to use them.)
As I mention above, you haven't explained what 'anti-Israel comments' I have made, nor defined what you mean by anti-Israel. This is very very important. You simply cannot go around making comments like that in public record without backing them up with hard evidence and examples. I rebut that claim in the strongest terms. I am not anti-Israel in any way, shape or form.
Finally, you said, 'I cannot help but think, after three years of anti-Israel comments on this blog, it is about something else.' It's not a jump to assume, given the subject of this thread that this was a concealed accusation of anti-Semitism. It is not a leap to think that there are those who will interpret that way. I was simply giving you a chance to clarify to make sure that no one would have a chance to misinterpret your views. So I'm glad to now understand that you are saying that you do not think I am anti-Semitic. Thank you.
Replying to Phillip @ 19:44 on 25 July:
(a) I'm sorry if pointing out that the Christian Church has had a lamentable history of anti-Semitism makes you uncomfortable.
(b) 2004. Yes I am, thank you very much. Are you?
(c) Some of Nick’s correspondence with the Diocese of Guildford is available on Harry’s Place. (Type “Nick Howard” into the search engine.) We wrote a joint letter to EN as well, inviting them to publish it alongside a response from Sizer. They declined to do so, but you can access it at http://wwedletter.wordpress.com/
(d) What do you make of the evidence regarding Stephen Sizer?
Replying to Andrew at 25 July 2012 @ 19:07
“where a person's every word is scrutinised so they can be silenced by accusations of anti-Semitism.”
Please give examples of anyone who has been “silenced”. Stephen Sizer, for the record, is still blogging as prolifically as ever.
“The real 'crime' is to challenge the State of Israel”
Not according to Nick Howard, who wrote “It would have been perfectly possible for Stephen Sizer to criticize Israel…” (see my comment of 24 July @ 10:26)
“But we have here some Christian zionists creating a climate of fear, allowing fellow believers and the gospel to be slandered, and seeking to divide Christians along un-scriptural lines.”
So let’s get this right: an evangelical vicar who posts to a racist website, issues a series of contradictory explanations for the delay in removing it, and who has a long track record of issuing other anti-Semitic statements, isn’t bringing the gospel into disrepute, but those who raise concerns about it are?
“Consider Helen Thomas, she made an off-the-cuff comment in an unplanned interview that Jews should 'get the hell out of Palestine' and even though she later apologised, this 90 year old Arab woman was bullied out of her job; 'Expelled' to quote Ben Stein. The words you want me to respond to James, call her a 'disgrace'. Do we not have a Christian duty to forgive her?”
Quite possibly, but not to say “Bring it on” as Stephen Sizer did.
“Consider Raed Salah's case. He was aquitted by a UK court http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/09/theresa-may-raed-salah-ban. Now I don't know the truth of the matter here as I have not studied it in sufficient depth, and it isn't for me to defend or charge him, but there is at least an element of doubt about what is true - again the words here call him an 'anti-Semitic hate preacher.' Is that really sustainable on the balance of evidence?”
What if the evidence includes the blood libel, or drawing a swastika on a blackboard of a Jewish teacher and then laughing about it? Judges don’t get everything right, you know. (http://hurryupharry.org/2012/04/08/judge-at-passover-nobody-saw-raed-salah-blood-libel-sermon-as-harmful/)
It’s good of you to deal with two more of the examples in the list. I know you’re a busy man, but I’d love to hear your views on the remaining items. Do the following constitute legitimate criticism of Israel, or anti-Semitism? (Oh, and by the way, inviting someone to express an opinion is the exact opposite of “silencing” them.)
- When accused of anti-Semitism, turning to a known anti-Semite for support;
- alluding to the archetype of the Christ-killing Jew;
- downplaying the Holocaust by using the same word to describe Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians;
- promoting the global Zionist conspiracy myth;
- spreading the outrageous myth of Israeli involvement in 9/11;
- making distasteful references to Monica Lewinsky’s Jewishness
“I am reminded of the words of Titus 3 which are for all of us… ‘But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless…”
OK, so raising concerns about anti-Semitism is really a “foolish controversy.” Well, sorry if it upsets you Andrew, but too many Jews have suffered throughout history because of anti-Semitism, for me and Nick to allow you to silence us with a piece of Scripture taken entirely out of context, rather than take steps to challenge it in our generation.
James -
(a) Either Stephen S's comments are anti-Semitic or they are not. Your argument stands or falls there. The history of anti-Semtism in Christian church is neither here nor there with regard to that crucial question. That you say you raise it to make people uncomfortable only goes to show that you recognise you are trying to get an emotional rather than a rational approach. The formulation is basically saying, I know you people are historical anti-Semites, I can only assume that unless you agree with me you still are!
(b) I am. I wonder what you think of the SEGP, the organisation that, along with its other regional bodies and the Proclamation Trust is doing most in the UK to build up Bible-believing Christians? Yet you choose to treat them in this way?
(c) EN is Evangelicals Now? I had seen the previous writings of Nick Howard. What about the letters to the Willow Creek Association, the EA, UCCF, New Word Alive and Christianity Explored? Also GAFCON and the FCA? Did you write to all these organisations that CC Virginia Water is associated with? If not, why did you pick the ones that you picked?
(d) I condemn anti-Semitism in the strongest terms. I have never met Stephen S, never been to his church, never read one of his books, only occasionally looked at his websites. From what I can tell, your accusations against him don't stand up. The crux of your case is a guilt-by-association argument, which doesn't convince me. When I read the diatribes against him on Harry's Place the links usually don't go anywhere, and it's mostly trial by insinuation and gargantuan leaps of logic. If I thought he was anti-Semitic, I would condemn in an instant. Sorry, you haven't convinced me.
Hi Phillip,
(d) is the crucial one isn't it?
So are you saying that none of the following examples of Sizer's conduct and statements are anti-Semitic?
"It would have been perfectly possible for Stephen Sizer to criticise Israel without posting links on Facebook to racist websites; or joining forces with recognised anti-Semites across the world; or, when accused of anti-Semitism, turning to a known anti-Semite for support; or alluding to the archetype of the Christ-killing Jew; or downplaying the Holocaust by using the same word to describe Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians; or promoting the global Zionist conspiracy myth; or endorsing a disgraced journalist’s call for Jews to ‘get the hell out of Palestine’; or spreading the outrageous myth of Israeli involvement in 9/11; or making distasteful references to Monica Lewinsky’s Jewishness; or backing the anti-Semitic hate preacher Sheikh Salah."
Just one follow-up - I'm not an expert on anti-Semitism like, for example, the folks here: http://www.pearsinstitute.bbk.ac.uk/.
So in general I don't accuse others of anti-Semitism. Such accusations can be hurtful, you see, and damaging. This is why Calvin, though disapproving of Stephen S's behaviour, does not accuse him of anti-Semitism.
In short, you won't draw me one way or the other on this. I'll leave it to the people who know better than me.
Philip would you say then that you would not be drawn to say the Christian Identity Movement for example is racist in its attitudes to black people because (I am assuming here that you are white, excuse my presumption if I am wrong)you are not black and therefore not well place to be drawn on it.
If a Jewish person faces racism for being Jewish, i.e. antisemitism, they are usually best placed to spot antisemitism when faced with it again.
Antisemitism is the racism that dares speak its name in the church and the real hurt and damage is cause to the Jewish people who face it, including Messianic Jews that have to suffer such animosity displayed to their kinsmen by their brothers and sisters in the faith.
Richard
Richard -
I have never heard of the Christian Identity Movement. All I can say on the topic is that race prejudice is wrong.
WIth regard to your other comments, yes, that's the approach that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission takes. As do the police. That is, a 'racist incident' is 'any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person'. There are lots of benefits to this approach. Most importantly it prevents prople from ignoring allegations of racism and imposes on us the duty to take such things seriously. On the other hand, it waters down any 'objective' measurement of the incident, at least in part.
I agree that it's important to seek out the views of Jewish people with regard to incidents of alleged anti-Semitism. Should that be the only measure? Should we actually seek out a consensus of people within that group rather than listen to one or two or three who speak louder than others, who claim to 'represent' a whole community? These are actually very real questions.
I personally have never encountered any racism is any church I have been to. Perhaps I'm just lucky. On the contrary most churches have a large devotion to 'international' ministry.
My advice to Stephen S, incidentally, would be to restrict himself to writing books of practical theology on the topic of Christian Zionism, to avoid controversy and downright silly and offensive comments like the Lewinsky one (I had no idea she was Jewish until reading this, incidentally, though clearly I'm in a minority) and more importantly to focus on his duties as a pastor, to preach the word.
Philip:
thanks for your clarifications.
You write: "I personally have never encountered any racism is any church I have been to. Perhaps I'm just lucky. On the contrary most churches have a large devotion to 'international' ministry."
But Philip were you an ethnic minority in those churches? I have come across far too many incidents of racism in general and antisemitism in particular in British churches, including evangelical ones, sad to say.
I suggest you ask any Messianic Jew if they have experienced antisemitism in church and in a sermon and you will find most have done, and continue to do so.
Your advice to Sizer is dead on, however he has been given it many times before.
Richard
Racism and antisemitism in the church are heresies which must be combatted wherever they are found.
James -
I disagree, I don't think that (d) is the crucial question. I think that (a) to (c) are just as important given the direction of this discussion.
Post a Comment