The Red Shoes, a sermon
Immorality at the
Highest Levels of the Church
On the Occasion of the Confirmation of a Homosexual Bishop in the Episcopal
Church
(Some based loosely on “The Red Shoes” by Hans Christian Anderson”)
Jackson
Snyder 
UPDATE!
2010 One of the most disturbing features of the visceral hostility
to Israel displayed by the Anglican Church is its underlying revival
of replacement theology, or supersessionism – the ancient Christian
calumny that, because of their denial of the divinity of Christ, the
Jews have forfeited God’s promises to them which have been
transferred to Christians.
UPDATE NPR Interviews Robinson & Duncan,
December 25, 2004
UPDATE
October 22, 2004
UPDATE! Anglican Communion Network
Snyder
Bible Home All Sermons
Search Entire Site
Go directly to message
PREVIEW
Triumph Against Trouble W. Phillip
Keller - how to!
For more on Anglican and Methodist Church
History,
PREVIEW A History
of the Christian Church, 4th Edition Williston
Walker
Jeremiah 8:7-12: 7. Even the
stork in the heavens knows her times; and the turtledove, swallow, and crane
keep the time of their coming; but my people know not the ordinance of
Yahweh. 8. "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the
law of Yahweh is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made
it into a lie. 9. The wise men shall be put to shame, they
shall be dismayed and taken; lo, they have rejected the word of Yahweh, and
what wisdom is in them? 10. Therefore I will give their wives to others
and their fields to conquerors, because from the least to the greatest every
one is greedy for unjust gain; from prophet to priest every one deals
falsely. 11. They have healed the wound of my people
lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace. 12.
Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at
all ashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among
the fallen; when I punish them, they shall be overthrown, says Yahweh.
Matthew 5:27-32 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not
commit adultery.' But I say to you that
every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with
her in his heart. If your right eye
causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose
one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut
it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than
that your whole body go into hell.
"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a
certificate of divorce.' But I say to
you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity,
makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery.
Update on The Red Shoes 2004 The Anglican Communion Network Announces a
Day of Prayer on August 5, 2004
The Anglican
Communion Network (ACN) has called for a Day of Prayer and Fasting on
Thursday, August 5, 2004, in observance of the first anniversary of the
confirmation of V. Gene Robinson, the first active homosexual bishop of the
Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA). The
following Sunday, August 8, 2004, is set aside as a day to recognize and
prayerfully support global missions whose ministries and resources experienced
the negative repercussions of General Convention 2003.
With the impending anniversary of Gene
Robinson’s confirmation to the episcopate, the ACN bishops, at a recent meeting
in Fort Worth, Texas, called for a specific date of organized intercessory
prayer for the Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church and global
witness. The bishops pointed to the
growing turmoil within ECUSA as well as the divisive and chaotic fallout from
decisions made at General Convention that have plunged the Anglican Communion
into a crisis situation affecting both domestic and ecumenical relations.
The flow of support, relationships
with host provinces and the integrity of teaching of missionaries around the
world has also been damaged by the Episcopal Church’s unilateral decisions to
move forward on its social agenda.
Participating in the Great Commission has become more difficult now,
versus a year ago, for many missionary movements. In an effort to rebuild awareness and
commitment to global missions, the ACN bishops are encouraging parishes to
dedicate their services on August 8 to recognition of missions through special
preaching, prayers, and designation of collections to help meet the needs of
missionaries. To read more about the ACN
and to see this original press release, please go to
http://www.anglicancommunionnetwork.org/news/dspnews.cfm?id=61.
|
|
Advertisement
from the famed discovery
The earliest,
oldest New Testament text has finally been released to the public.
You may read the Codex Sinaiticus online - but only if you
know Greek! To read it in
English, you need the only English translation we know.
The H. T.
Anderson English Translation
of the Codex Sinaiticus, with the three extra early New
Testament books and the Sonnini Manuscript of Acts 29 included, and
the original absences of certain verses (put in there later by the
'church') is now
available only at here.
THIS IS NOT A
CHEAP, SCANNED-IN FACSIMILE. This is a first edition of the text
published in easy-to-read Georgia font with plenty of room between
verses for your notes.2 points between verses, hard or soft cover. |
Advertisement
Also known as
The
Recognitions of Clement
Ever wonder why
PAUL and not PETER received the
 mission
to the lost tribes? Wasn't Peter the stone upon which the
"church" was to be built? In this new translation of the
Nazarene Acts, we follow Kefa (Peter) as he itinerates from
Jerusalem and up the Mediterranean coast up to Tripoli, as recorded
in the journals of his successor, Clement of Rome (Phi 4:3).
Every message Kefa preached, the company he kept, and the great
works of faith the the Almighty accomplished through him are herein
recorded. This 300 page volume has been 'hidden' in the back
of an obscure volume of the "Church Fathers" all this time.
Could it be that, in establishing the Gentile 'church' by pushing
away from Judaism, this history was purposely hidden? |
Fable, Part I
Once upon a time
there was a holy craftsman who had such favor with the Master Craftsman that he
was able to fashion anything out of pinewood and make it work. Once he heard the voice of the Master saying,
“Go marry the woman in the red shoes.”
Though he didn’t love the woman in the red shoes, he followed the
Master’s direction, asked her for her hand; and they married.
He soon found out
that his new wife had a passion for shoes.
She had a hundred pairs and was always buying more. She also had a passion for dancing late into
the night. When she left to dance, she
always put on the red shoes.
Since her new husband had to work late to support her extravagance, she
put on the red shoes more and more and was gone later and later, night after
night.
The next year a little
girl was born; they named her Gracie.
The godly father thought the child would help his wife settle down and,
for a while, that was the case.
But soon, mother began to hear the call of the red shoes, and was
off again, and before long, almost every night.
Her husband was so regretful; he prayed, “O Master Craftsman, why did
you have me to marry this woman. I must
care for little Gracie up all by myself without any help from her.”
Late one morning,
when her mother was still sleeping, Gracie decided to try her mother’s red
shoes. Her feet were way too small, but
she was able to walk a few clumsy little steps.
Sensing her little feet, the shoes began to dance of their own accord,
and little Gracie was tossed out, bruising her head against the dressing
table. She had become afraid of those
red shoes, and was mystified by them.
It wasn’t long
after Gracie bumped her head against the table that she found – a little
sister, whom her parents named Faithie.
Gracie and Faithie grew up together loving each other and G-d, and were
beloved in the neighborhood. But they
were also pitied.
When Gracie was
twelve years old, she began to feel the natural rebelliousness of
adolescence. Once again, after a night
of dancing, her mother was in the bed late.
But Gracie had been up for hours studying her catechism in preparation
for her confirmation next Sunday. As she
was reading the Lord’s prayer, she noticed her mother’s red shoes in a heap by
the door. Gracie hated those shoes
because they had denied her and Faithie a proper mother. She decided to set them afire, so she checked
on her eight-year-old sister, picked up the shoes, and took them outside. But before she could set the fire, she
decided to try the shoes on once again – but this time, she found that they
fit!
But those devilish
shoes knew they were condemned to the fire, so they clung to Gracie’s
feet. Try as she might, she couldn’t
take them off. Gracie began to dance,
or, I should say, the shoes began to dance with Gracie in them. They danced her off down the street. She became very frightened as she pirouetted
past dozens of houses. In her dizziness
and fatigue, she called out for help, but nobody knew what to do. Finally, somebody called for her father at
his shop.
Before he could
respond, Gracie came flying past the shop, crying out in terror, “Daddy! Daddy!
The red shoes! Get them off my
feet or I’ll die!” Her father ran out
into the street and caught her up into his arms and carried her into the
shop. As I mentioned before, the Master
Craftsman bestowed a great deal of favor on this man so that he could fix about
anything. So if he was favored, why did
the Master command him to marry the woman with the red shoes, oh why? Why?
For the very purpose of bringing Gracie and Faithie into the world, of
course.
And now, Gracie was
in the shop, lying upon the craftsman’s table, her body finally still, but her
feet flailing about, dancing in the air.
The shoes wouldn’t come off, no matter what her father tried. Meanwhile, at home, mother heard the cries of
the captive red shoes in a dream. She
awoke to find the shoes had been taken, and she knew by devilment what had happened. Without another thought or care, or a word to
anyone, mother packed up some of her other shoes and a few clothes and left for
the abode of her favorite dance partner.
Faithie was all alone in the house now.
But she knew better than to cry out for her mother in the state she was
in.
Back at the
craftsman’s shop, Gracie’s father, having no wisdom of his own, prayed, asking
how his daughter might be set free from the shoes. And he received an answer. Like his previous instructions on marriage,
these too were drastic, and he knew that if he followed the Master Craftsman this
time, it could mean the death of his eldest daughter. Yet if this was the only way she could be
saved, he must go through with it.
So he put his hand
over her eyes and his moaning daughter fell asleep. Then he took his best saw and, as gently and
evenly as possible, he cut off his daughter’s feet, including the shoes. The shoes, liberated from the sleeping body,
danced to the fireplace, cast the severed feet into the fire, and danced off
out of the shop and into the street. But
the father wasn’t watching the shoes depart.
Instead, he was hastily but carefully fashioning new feet and shoes for
his daughter out of pinewood; he stained the shoes white, then he attached the
wooden feet with the white shoes on the stumps of Gracie’s shins.
When Gracie awoke,
she felt no pain, and there was no recovery time. She was so very relieved to be rid of the
evil red shoes, yet it was so awkward balancing and trying to walk in those new
wooden feet, for she no longer had any ankles!
“Daddy, how can this be right,” she asked. But Daddy could only shake his head and say,
“The Master Craftsman knows. Let us pray
together. Our Father, who art in Heaven,
hallowed be thy name...”
That weekend, amid
whispers and giggles, Gracie was confirmed at her church in her white wooden
shoes. After saying her vows, she
awkwardly knelt at the altar to receive the body and blood of Jesus for the
first time. As she arose, she noticed
right off that her ankles were bending and she could feel her feet again. Yes, she looked down to find her feet intact
inside the most beautiful pair of white patent leather shoes she had ever
seen. Proudly and smiling, she walked
back to the confirmation line with the other children, remembering her Daddy’s
words, “the Master Craftsman knows.” Her
little sister, Faithie, was there to see the miracle, and she was so proud of
her big sister. (To
be continued at the end.)
Was Yahweh Married?
Did Yahweh have a
bride? We know for certain that he
did. Throughout the Scriptures, we find
Yahweh both boasting in and bemoaning his consort, Israel. Look at
Isaiah
54:5 "For your creator is your husband, whose name is Yahweh Tsaviot; And
your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, who is called the El of the earth.”
(Here
is illusion to the
Two
Yahwehs again, Tsaviot in Heaven and the Holy One on earth.)
6b. For
a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather you. In an outburst of anger I hid My face from
you for a moment, but with everlasting lovingkindness I will have compassion on
you."
That “outburst of anger” was on account of
when the religious leaders of Israel put on their red shoes and went
dancing away into the arms of the tribal gods, taking the unlearned people with
them. Fortunately for Israel and us, the
prophecy ends on a hopeful note; that everlasting kindness will return
when the bride returns. It is our
prayer and fervent hope that this reunification is happening in our time.
Plain
Talk on Immorality
(Read the Gospel Matthew 5:27-32.) In our gospel
reading today, Yahshua is also talking plainly about divorce and that “outburst
of anger” referred to by his Father. The
barest bones of his message is that a person under the covenant of Yahweh
who divorces causes the divorced spouse to sin. Then, by remarrying, the divorcer brings an
additional person into sin. A
person may divorce with impunity if the partner has broken the law
through immorality. Note again
that these conditions apply only to those who are married under the covenant
of Yahweh, which includes baptized believers in Yahshua.
There are a number of questions that come up about this passage (Matthew
5:27-32), especially from new or divorced believers:
(1) If I’m
divorced, shouldn’t I now, as a believer, go back to my first spouse? The answer to that question is a definite
“maybe.” Maybe you were led
astray in the first place and should go back to that pious believer, if he or
she will still have you. On the other
hand, sliding back into the hog trough shows no respect for the blood that
washed you. Does that answer your
question?
(2) What
gets me out of this marriage? The answer
is “immorality.” The Greek word is pornea
(pornea) from which we get the word “pornography.” According to the Leviticus 18, pornea includes adultery,
fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, and may include the kind of filth piped
into homes by an electrical wire. Today,
pornea is
not only unlawful for believers, but extremely dangerous, for Yahweh has
plagued the immoral of any stripe.
Why? Because he seeks out a clean
people worthy of his name, Yahweh.
I might add that I
also believe that spousal or child abuse are grounds enough for divorce, and I
would counsel anybody suffering physical abuse to leave their abuser
immediately while they can; not hang in there to kill or be killed. Although Paul taught wives to submit to
their husbands, he also commanded husbands to love their wives (Ephesians 5:22-27). Does that answer your question?
Yahshua
Married?
Here’s another question: Was Yahshua
married? There are several biographies
who say he was, including Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-1990, his biography is
entitled Jesus),
in which the marriage at Cana was Jesus’ own.
And, in the eyes of the rabbinical world of the first century, it would
have been very unusual if Jesus hadn’t married by the age of thirty (1
Timothy 3:12) unless,
of course, he was a Nazarite!
But the thought of Jesus being married is
somehow blasphemous in the minds of fundamentalist Christians. I personally don’t know if Jesus was married
in those days, but I can tell you of a certainly that Jesus is married
NOW. Do you believe me? Turn to
Revelation
19:6 "Hallelujah! For Yahweh, the
Almighty, reigns. 7. Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the
marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready."
Of
course, the Lamb of Yahweh is Yahshua / Jesus – none other (John
1:29,36). And to whom is Jesus married?
Revelation
19: 8 “Fine linen, bright and clean, was given to {the bride} to clothe
herself; for fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. `Blessed are those
who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.'”
As
the bride of Yahweh is Israel, the bride of his son is his Kingdom Assembly
(“church”), and his bride wears the fine, clean linen of good deeds and chaste
behavior. This is why we have the
tradition of virginal brides wearing white yet today. In Jesus’ day, brides didn’t necessarily wear
white. Who did? None other than the righteous teachers of
Yahweh – no one else. And who wears the
clean, white linen today? We claim that we
do; don’t we sing the song,
In my
robe of white I will fly away to that land so fair, meet my Jesus there.
It will be so grand when I enter that land in my
robe of white I will fly away.
-- Geniece Spencer Ingold
You
can’t get into the great banquet unless you’re wearing the banqueting clothes (Matthew
22:11-14)! If we wear the linen robe of righteousness,
then we wear the gown of his bride.
The
Greater Divorce
So now let’s look back at Jesus’ words about
divorce from a heavenly point of view rather than an earthly. (We divorced need no longer squirm in our
seats today.) There’s a much higher
meaning to Jesus’ words than the mundane that everyone argues about.
Jesus talks about the groom who sends his
wife away – and that it’s forbidden except in the case of immorality (“fornication,” KJV). Paul would interpret immorality (or
fornication)
in a far broader sense than we. He says:
Therefore
consider the members of your earthly body as dead to unchastity, immorality,
passion, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry. (Colossians 3:5)
Of
course, immorality as idolatry consists in the abandonment of the
Law of Yahweh, and lusting after false gods and the pornographic
practices involved in their worship.
In those days, worship included not only committing immoral
sexual acts but viewing them; such acts as they did in the name of ba’al
might even make our modern, television-drugged culture blush, maybe.
Yahweh talks about his bride Israel being
involved in such pornographic idolatry in many Bible passages. Because of this immorality and betrayal,
(Jeremiah
8:7b paraphrase) Yahweh says, “My people no longer even know my commandments.”
Yahweh
tells us exactly why his bride ended up in this deplorable state in the next
verse.
8. "The pen
of the scribes has made {the Law} into a lie. 9. The teachers are now
shamed and dismayed because they ‘got caught’!
10. So I’ll give their wives away to others -- { see how
they like that}.”
These bishops that
Yahweh addresses are the shepherds of his people. They’re caught in their adulteries with
none other than HIS bride; but even when a jealous god catches them, Yahweh
reveals their attitude about it. He
says,
12. "Were they ashamed because of their abominations? They
certainly were not. They no longer
even knew how to blush!”
My friends, people must be extremely
comfortable with their abominable, godless, pornographic behavior if, when
caught, they not only fail to acknowledge their guilt, but they have simply
forgotten how to blush. Blushing is
the natural reaction to shame and guilt.
Blushing can’t be controlled unless there is no more shame in
doing immorality. Unchastity has become completely
normal behavior for these godless bishops of Israel.
¿Who these days even cringes at a murder,
much less blushes for the shame in having observed it? And as for those who revel in that which is
indecent, their blushes aren’t from shame but from taking pleasure in their own
indecencies. It is the immoral that will
be raptured out in the end.
13 Yahweh
declares, "I will surely snatch them away.
There will be no grapes on their vine And no figs on their fig; And what
I’ve given them will pass away.”
Remember
that. “What I’ve given them will pass
away.”
Every
One was an Henery
King
Henry the VIII
of England (1509 – 1547) demanded a male heir.
His queen, Catherine of Aragon (who was also his brother’s widow), gave
him a daughter but no son. England was
Catholic, and if a King wanted a divorce, he had to appeal to the Pope in Rome. The Pope wouldn’t grant it, so Henry simply
took over the Catholic Church in England, called the bishops together, and had
them formulate a new national church constitution with Henry the VIII as its
head. While this was happening, Henry
took five more wives, had two executed for adultery, but finally got the male
heir he needed -- Edward, who became known as the Confessor.
Anyway, reformation was in the air, and the
Bishops of England, some of which were very righteous, saw their opportunity to
right the errors of Catholicism. One
important innovation was to make the Bible available to the common people in
the English language. Whereas in the
early portion of Henry’s reign, Wickliffe’s English Bible was burned by the
Crown, in the end, (70% of) his Bible was being published under government
authority. In the next one hundred
years, the Church of England, Henry’s church, became the new bastion of truth –
G-d’s Kingdom on Earth – and Britain became Great Britain, blessed by Yahweh
with prosperity and wealth from all over the world. Such is a perfect example of how Yahweh can
turn something very bad into something very good.
Meanwhile,
Back at the Farm
Two hundred fifty years later, the Church of
England had made great inroads in the colonies of what was to become the United
States. The Church of England
(Anglican) had conceived two daughters: the Episcopal Church, faithful to
the tenets of the Church of England, and the Methodist Episcopals, an
evangelical movement within the Episcopal Church, that had a mind of its
own.
When it came to the war of American
independence, the Episcopals remained affiliated with the Church of England,
but those in the Methodist movement considered themselves Americans, and
demanded that Wesley consecrate bishops to lead a new American church. Wesley was in a bind because he was an
ordained priest in the Church of England and sided with the English
during the American Revolution. He had
no more authority to consecrate a bishop than I do. Yet he was a practical man, and sent Thomas
Coke to Baltimore in 1774, where Coke ordained Francis Asbury a deacon one day,
an elder the next, and on Christmas Eve 1774, Coke consecrated Asbury a bishop,
the first bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church. (And that’s how we got the name “Coke –
sbury.”) As it turned out, Asbury was
the only ordained Methodist minister to remain throughout the war – all the
Methodist preachers were lay preachers.
This was in keeping with John Wesley’s boast,
"Give me 100 preachers who fear nothing but sin
and desire nothing but God, and I care not a straw whether they be clergy or
laymen; such alone will shake the gates of hell, and set up the kingdom of
Heaven on earth" (see Dean,
The
Saddle is My Pulpit).
In the next 200
years, the youngest daughter of the Church of England, the Methodist Church,
would grow to be the largest assembly of believers in America. Primarily through church splits, it’s in
second place in our day with something less than ten million
members. On the other hand, the
Episcopal Church, still connected with the Church of England, would decline in
just the last thirty years by nearly 50%, now claiming just over two million
members and still descending into the vortex of oblivion. Something drastic would have to be done to
bring attention to the elder daughter of the Church of England in the United
States!
An(other) Immoral
Bishop
That “something”
happened August 6th (2003) when the Episcopal Church put on the red
shoes. In an effort to get more
attention for the flailing Church, the first openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene
Robinson, was confirmed by a vote of 62 to 45 at their general conference in Minnesota. Some convention delegates who opposed
Robinson on biblical grounds left the meeting in tears when he was
elected. Others went home, prayed or
refused to vote on other agenda items in protest.
Bishop Robert
Duncan of Pittsburgh, along with a dozen other conservatives, immediately walked
to the podium after the vote was taken.
Here’s Duncan’s statement, in solidarity with the others:
"This body willfully confirming the election of
a person sexually active outside of holy matrimony has departed from the
historic faith and order of the Church of Jesus Christ. This body has divided itself from millions of
Anglican Christians around the world":
(I
might add, seventy-seven million Anglicans around the world, to be exact;
mostly in Africa, mostly very conservative.)
Newly elected
Bishop Gene Robinson was once
married and blessed with two daughters before abandoning his family to enter
into a public homosexual relationship.
For the last thirteen years, Robinson has been active in promoting
homosexuality among teenagers, while retaining his priesthood. And this may be one of the reasons he was
elected a Bishop.
Listen:
Bishop Steve Charleston is the dean of the Episcopal Divinity School, the place
where young people learn how to become ministers of the Gospel. When Fox News’ host Bill O'Reilly him asked
Charleston why Gene Robinson was elected despite the biblical injunctions about
church leaders being moral persons, Charleston’s name fit him to a tea as he
danced around the answers to O’Reilly’s questions. He threw in the red shoe -- "The real
problem we're facing in the church,” he said, “is abuse, {not
homosexuality}.” O’Reilly asked him how
electing a promoter of an illicit lifestyle among youth could possibly address
the problem of abuse. Charleston did the
red shoe dance around that question {not a quote, only my memory}: “We believe
Bishop Robinson will be able to pull the youth back into the church and
thus be a great asset to future church dialog and growth.”
Although the
Episcopal and Methodist sisters have been knowingly ordaining homosexuals for
years, this development in a sister church is a slide down a moral morass that
will leave no niche of the Body of Jesus untouched anywhere. And although we as a people have many sins
with which to deal, and we are wrestling to secure our own salvation, a
Bishopric is no place for the immoral sodomite to be flaunting his unrepentant
sin before the youth of this nation for the sake of headlines or evangelism. These Episcopal Bishops are like the scribes
of the apostate Levites – they’re so engrossed in pornographic immorality that
they’ve “even forgotten how to blush.”
It’s our sincere prayer and hope that the Master Craftsman will be able
to put his daughter to sleep and replace the red shoes with white, even if it
means cutting of her feet to do it.
It’s also our prayer that the younger sister (i.e. The
Methodist Church) leaves those shoes alone!
Amen.
Fable, Part II: OH! I forgot to tell you what happened to the dancing
mother and the red shoes. The mother
danced off and was never seen again. She
didn’t move away, but she dwelt in dark places where her family would never
think to go. The red shoes that had run
out of the craftsman’s shop of their own accord were not seen for several
years, but they did show up again; you will not be surprised where.
After Gracie was
confirmed, her feet were restored perfectly.
She could remove her “miracle” white shoes when she wanted and put on
any other pair, for she had a passion for new shoes like her mother. But the white ones would always be her
favorite, and she wore them when she was married in the same little Episcopal
church that had confirmed her, where the Great Craftsman had miraculously
restored her pinewood feet to flesh.
Faithie, the
younger sister, was raised by their father and her godly stepmother, a woman
who was faithful to prepare the sacrament each Sunday morning. Faithie too loved shoes and had inherited
many pairs that her mother had left behind.
But she still dreamed about one particular pair she’d seen her mother
wear years before: those red dancing shoes.
Faithie was twelve now and preparing for her confirmation by studying
the Lord’s prayer. Suddenly, there was a
rap at the door. Faithie opened the
door, but nobody was there. She shut it
to go back to her studies, but there was another rap. “Strange,” she thought. This time, when she opened the door, she
heard a tap-tap-tapping down by her feet.
Her eyes fell to the pavement and she was surprised, and oh, so pleased,
to find exactly that which she’d been dreaming of there on the doorstep – those
sparkling red shoes – which had come begging to be put on.
The Vatican Reverses into a Darker Age
Melanie Phillips -
FamilySecurityMatters.org, October 26th, 2010
One of the most disturbing features of the visceral
hostility to Israel displayed by the Anglican Church is its
underlying revival of replacement theology, or
supersessionism – the ancient Christian calumny that,
because of their denial of the divinity of Christ, the Jews
have forfeited God’s promises to them
which have been transferred to Christians. This pernicious
doctrine was the principal motor behind the medieval
Christian pogroms against the Jews, and persisted until the
Holocaust, after which it went underground until it was
revived in recent years and fused with Palestinianism. As a
result, some Anglican theologians now claim that God’s
promise to the Jews of the land of Israel is forfeit and has
passed instead to the Palestinians.
Until now, the Catholic Church seemed to have wanted to bury
this doctrine of replacement theology, with the Second
Vatican Council showing an awareness of the role of
Christianity in the persecution of the Jews and an apparent
desire to put an end for ever to the theology that had
fuelled it. But now Rome has reversed itself. At a Vatican
press conference on Saturday following a communiqué
demanding that Israel accept UN resolutions calling for an
end to its ‘occupation’ of Arab lands, bishops appeared to
jump from the ‘occupation’ to Israel itself and from
politics to theology. The
Jerusalem Post reports:
‘The Holy Scriptures cannot be used to justify the return of
Jews to Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians, to
justify the occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands,’
Monsignor Cyril Salim Bustros, Greek Melkite archbishop of
Our Lady of the Annunciation in
Boston,
Massachusetts, and president of the
‘Commission for the Message,’ said at Saturday’s Vatican
press conference.
‘We Christians cannot speak of the “promised land” as an
exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people. This promise
was nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people
– all men and women of all countries have become the chosen
people. Even if the head of the
Israeli
state is Jewish, the future is based on
democracy. The Palestinian refugees will eventually come
back and this problem will have to be solved,’ the
Lebanese-born Bustros said.
1) The
Bible was not used to justify the return of Jews to Israel.
The justification agreed by the world was the unique
historic claim to the land of Israel by the Jews, who
were the only nation for whom it had ever been their
ancestral homeland.
2)
There was no ‘displacement of the Palestinians’ when modern
Israel was formed. The Arabs tried to displace the Jews and
failed. Many of the area’s Arabs fled the fighting
intending to return as victors. They lost.
3) It
is not clear whether Bustros is claiming merely that
Israel’s ‘occupation’ of the disputed territories is
unjustifiable, or whether the whole of Israel is ‘occupied’
unjustifiably by the Jews. Taken as a whole, his remarks
would seem to be implying the latter. He thus seems to be
saying that Israel itself is illegitimate and therefore
should no longer exist as a Jewish state because the Jews
have no right to their own country.
4)
There is no conflict between Israel as a Jewish state and
Israel as a democratic state. This is because the Jews are a
nation as well as a religion; within the Jewish nation
state, minority Israeli citizens have equal political and
civil rights.
5) The
reason Bustros says the Jews have no right to their own
country is not political but theological, because he denies
that the Jews are the ‘chosen people’; he claims that this
designation has been nullified by Christ, thus making all
people chosen. This makes very little sense: it does not
explain why, since other people are allowed to have their
own nation states, the Jews alone should be singled out to
be denied their historic national homeland.
But above all, it is a resurrection of the ancient Christian
calumny that the Jews are damned for all time as cosmic
exiles on account of their refusal to accept the divinity of
Christ. It is therefore a profoundly anti-Jewish statement.
Is this merely a rogue outburst by a partisan bishop? If so,
the Vatican must immediately distance itself from these
remarks. If it does not, it would seem that the Vatican has
taken a giant step backwards into a darker age.
August 15, 2003
|