Infiltrating the Churches: Part 4

Next week, the world-wide United Methodist Church will begin its quadrennial meeting in Tampa. When the delegates, bishops, denominational staff, and other support personnel gather, they will not be alone.

In June, the Presbyterian Church (USA) will hold its biennial meeting in Pittsburgh. When the commissioners and other Presbyterians gather, they will not be alone.

In both instances, they will be met by political activists with an agenda: the delegitimization, and ultimately destruction, of Israel as a national homeland for the Jewish people. Their immediate goal: to get these two mainline denominations to put their stamp of approval on that agenda.

Over the last three days, I have offered internal documents, links, analysis, and other evidence to demonstrate that this is what is about to happen in Tampa and soon to happen in Pittsburgh. In the process, I hope I have made clear that this is about the efforts of secular, political activists who otherwise have no interest in the beliefs, practices, or positions of either of these denominations to manipulate them for their own purposes. They are being helped by a small coterie of like-minded activists within the denominations, but make no mistake: this show is being orchestrated by, informed by, led by, directed by, organized by, and resourced by organizations of the political far left.

I want to make clear at this point two things that these articles have not been about:

1) They have not been about Israel. There is much about Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories that is debatable, and a legitimate case can be made against its settlement policy, for instance, or the route of the security fence. But those who want to make this about Israel have missed the point, which is that if Methodists or Presbyterians want to criticize Israel, they should make that decision without outside interference by people who don’t have either the witness or the good of the denominations at heart.

2) This has not been about divestment. It is an article of faith on the left that divestment from South Africa led to the fall of apartheid, and that divestment from Israel can bring about an end to the occupation. In fact, I think the effect of divestment on South Africa is vastly overstated, and that divestment will have no effect on Israel at all. The only part of the “boycott, divestment, and sanctions” (BDS) movement that is likely to effect Israel in any way is sanctions, and then only if they are undertaken by most or all of the world’s nations, which is never going to happen. The actions of a couple of mainline Protestant denominations selling their pension fund stock in three companies is almost more of a joke than a serious effort. It is, in truth, a leftist form of ritual cleansing, rather than a genuine effort to have an impact on the conflict.

What this is about, as the title of the posts has said, is the infiltration of the churches by outside forces that seek to use them for their own ends. Leftists have been doing this since at least the 1960s, the result being that the churches have been dragged into lending their names to an ever-increasing number of causes and positions that have no basis in either church teaching or ethics, but solely in political views that the left views as Holy Writ, but which are actually just prudential judgments about which the churches ought to be agnostic. What special expertise does the church have, for instance, that makes it proper for a General Conference to express itself on the various forms of health insurance reform? Why should anyone listen to a General Assembly when it opines about what constitutes “fair” tax rates? And why should either be deciding whether Israel’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza constitute “apartheid,” a political judgment that has nothing to do with whether any particular actions of Israel are right or wrong?

None of this is to say that the churches should not speak out loudly and in accordance with their convictions on matters that touch the gospel and its moral implications. Rather, it is to suggest that the churches have no special competence (in fact, usually none at all) to weigh in on policy specifics. But that is just what the activists are after, and it is clear that they will do everything in their power–including interfering in the work of institutions to which they have no personal connection–in order to make it happen. Here’s praying that the delegates to General Conference, and the commissioners to General Assembly, are not swayed by the political noise that they hear directed their way.

 

Infiltrating the Churches: Part 3

This all needs to be done *quickly.* We are less than 3 weeks away from the Methodist Conference, so time is of the essence. Can you start this week? Yes, I know you’re busy, but how thrilling will it be to have been a part of history when we win?

With those words, left-wing Jewish political activists Anna Baltzer of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and Sydney Levy of Jewish Voice for Peace encouraged others to get in on their effort to influence decisions of the United Methodist Church’s General Conference. It’s part of the tactics encapsulated in the “Toolkit: Action for Church Divestment” that has gone out to their enablers in recent weeks.

Right at the start, they make clear that this is only part of a larger political campaign:

What’s going on? What are our goals? Between now and early July, after more than eight years of hard work, two large Christian denominations — the United Methodist Church (of the world!) and the Presbyterian Church USA — will vote on divestment from companies involved in Israel’s occupation and its oppression of the Palestinian people. These churches are under attack for the courageous decisions they are about to make. With your help, we can help strengthen their resolve.

What’s the significance/importance?

*These could become the largest divestment victories in the US to date.
*They will inspire divestment efforts in other institutions and they build on other campaigns like “Stop Caterpillar,” “Hang Up on Motorola,” and the “We Divest” TIAA-CREF Campaign.
*Divestment is the right thing to do. It is a moral, nonviolent response to the immoral daily violence of the Israeli occupation.

Stepping stones: that’s how the USCEIO and JVP see the churches.

Baltzer and Levy then go on to list five things that their allies can do, the first three of which are important:

1. Contact voting delegates/commissioners before the conferences.
***This is the most important thing that we need.*** We need to reach out to these delegates to support them in doing the right thing and answering questions/concerns they might have. Phone calls and in-person meetings (if you have time and happen to live near a delegate) are recommended.

More on this in a moment.

2. Come to Tampa and/or Pittsburgh! We need tons of help at the conferences themselves. There will be opportunities to interact with delegates during breaks and to participate in special events. Other needs include tracking legislation, media, tabling, hospitality, leafleting, and more. A strong presence in favor of divestment at these conferences is really important.

You’d think these people were lobbying Congress. The fact that they have no intrinsic connection to the institution, and that many, perhaps most of the people they have there won’t either, doesn’t make the slightest difference to them. All they care about is the politics.

3. Find allies who can help speak to delegates or come to the conferences. Methodist, Presbyterian, Palestinian (esp. Palestinian Christian), and Jewish supporters are especially important.

Three responses: 1) Why bring Presbyterians to the Methodist GC? Because the denominational and polity differences don’t matter to the political activists. 2) Any Palestinian Christian that are brought are likely represent a Sabeel-approved agenda. They also will do all they can to make life under Muslim rule sound idyllic. 3) Jewish supporters of the activists anti-Israel agenda are designed to give Gentile Christians cover. They figure, “hey, if there are Jews who support this, it can’t really be anti-Israel.” Would that it were so.

Now, back to item 1. The Baltzer/Levy Legion has been give some guidance in how to approach the Methodist delegates:

1. DON’T alienate. Keep history, acronyms, politics, and attitude in check.
2. DO engage. Stay positive and build on shared values. We support freedom and equality for all people.
3. DO focus on the narrative and story you are telling. If you are Jewish or Palestinian, say so. If you have traveled to Israel and Palestine, explain what you saw. Make it personal.
4. DO listen. Pay attention to what the other person is saying. Ask questions. Do not interrupt, even if the speaker says something you do not like. When speaking with delegates, pay double attention. We will want you to report back what you heard — what do they believe, what are the obstacles they may have (if any) for voting yes, and what kind of follow-up may be needed.

“Keep history in check.” Because an informed person will know that the USCEIO-JVP version of history will distort reality beyond recognition. “Keep politics in check.” Convince them that you aren’t motivated by politics, but by a touching concern for Methodism. “Make it personal.” Because personal experience trumps truth, history, and the bigger picture.

Oh, and for any delegates to the General Conference who may be reading this: note well that what you say will be passed on to the activists.

In making calls, the Legion is provided with a script, just in case they can’t keep the talking points straight. You can find the whole thing here, but let’s look at a sample:

Hi, this is _____________. I’m a (insert: member of ______, Palestinian Christian, Jewish American,
person who has traveled to Israel/Palestine, local teacher, etc). I hope you had a Happy Easter! Do you have a moment to chat?

So I’m a person who’s a delegate to the General Conference, and I get this call from someone who tells me first thing, “I’m a Jewish American” or “I’m a local teacher” (huh?) My first thought is going to be, “and you want to talk to me why?”

(If you’re from the same area geographically, mention it here.) I’m calling because I was so happy to learn about the resolution that is being considered at General Conference to divest from companies involved in the Israeli occupation. I’m a strong supporter of divestment. Do you know much about the resolution? Do you have any questions that I could answer?

“So, you’re a local teacher or you’re Jewish and you want to talk to me about General Conference business? Why exactly are you sticking your nose into my church’s business? What makes you such an expert on the United Methodist Church? And why do you think you know more about our business than I do?”

If they don’t know about the resolution:
Methodist peace-seekers are working to align the church’s investment policies with your stated positions on ending the Israeli occupation.

“Well, I’m glad to hear that it is so important to you that my denomination be consistent in its political stances, even to the point of advocating that we take a specific action that conforms to your ideas of consistency.”

There are over 3,000 people around the country who have signed a petition endorsing the resolution, including many Jews, Palestinian Christians, and others.

“So 3000 people, all of whom could be members of Code Pink, and many of whom are not Methodists, have endorsed this resolution. Why exactly do they think that they are entitled to weigh in on Methodist business?”

If there are questions you can’t answer:
I don’t know the answer to that question off the top of my head but I could definitely send you the answer.

I’d be willing to bet that if the question hints at anything that runs counter to the activists’ narrative, this will happen:

If they are clearly hostile:
Thanks very much. Have a good day… (and hang up!)

They also offer a sample voicemail message that callers could leave if no one is at home:

I’m calling because I was so inspired to learn about the resolution that is being considered at General Conference to divest from companies involved in the Israeli occupation. I’m a strong supporter of divestment, along with lots of Christian leaders like the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and many Jews and rabbis – there’s actually a new letter of support from rabbis at http://www.rabbisletter.org.

See what I mean about the way Jewish support for divestment is made front and center? It’s mentioned over and over, to give those who might otherwise have doubts cover.

That aspect of their lobbying comes up as well in a video chat that took place about ten days ago. You can find it here, if you have an hour to kill. If you don’t, consider these comments in the chat bar that goes with the video presentation:

Jeffrey Mendelman from SF: You said “I’m Jewish-American”
Felice Gelman from United States: Exactly. Should we say that we are part of a campaign rather than sounding like an individual?
Jeffrey Mendelman from SF: To counter anti-semitic claims against hte movement
Craig Hunter from Denton: My suggestion as a Presbyterian — if you are Jewish, I think it is very important to mention that.
Benjamin Douglas from Sacramento, CA: I would assume he was pandering, just to get someone whom he thinks is an angry Zionist off his back.
Rochelle Gause: not acting is an action.
Katharine Davies Samway from Oakland: Why don’t we mention the huge, unbalanced response of the US, our government

You can also take a look at the training video that United Methodist Kairos Response (the tools who are being used by the activists to gain access and cover to the General Conference) has put out.

So there you have it: a concerted, organized, detailed, and intrusive effort by left-wing anti-Israel activists to infiltrate the highest decision-making body of the United Methodist Church for the purpose of manipulating it in support of their political agenda.

Tomorrow: Final thoughts.

(Cross-posted at Stand Firm.)

 

Infiltrating the Churches: Part 2

The groups seeking to influence the mainline churches denominational meetings are a motley crew of left-wing political outfits and their allies inside those denominations. In case you aren’t familiar with them, I’d like to introduce them to you.

First, there’s the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (USCEIO). It calls itself “the largest and most diverse coalition working to change U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine to support human rights, international law, and equality.” That sounds nice, but it’s just verbiage. So is the Campaign’s claim not to support either a two-state or one-state solution to the Palestinian problem.

The reason is that the USCEIO supports, as a “human right,” the so-called “right of return” for Palestinians. This refers to the claim that hundreds of thousands of Arabs were forced at gunpoint by Israel to leave the country in 1948, and that those still alive and all of their descendants should have the freedom to return to Israel, reclaim any property they claim to have held at the time, and become citizens of the country. (In fact, most of the Arabs who left Israel at the time of the invasion of the new nation by five Arab armies did so simply to get out of the way of the fighting, or because they listened to Arab propaganda and thought they’d be returning home in a few weeks once their brethren had pushed the Jews into the sea. Check out the history as it was recorded at the time here. It should also be noted that almost a million Jews were expelled from various Arab nations in 1948 and years following, and the USCEIO has never uttered a word suggesting that they should be allowed to return to their former homes.)

This, of course, is a formula for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish national homeland. Adding what is now millions of Palestinians to the over one million Arabs who are already citizens of Israel (because they didn’t leave in 1948, and have therefore enjoyed greater freedom than any of their Arab brethren for over 60 years) would create an Arab majority. Assuming Israel remained a democracy, once the Palestinians were in charge of the country, things would change, to say the least. It is hardly beyond the ream of possibility that the new Arab-ruled Israel would expel the Jewish population, just as the Iraqis, Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, and others before them. It’s also likely that, since the vast majority of Palestinians are Muslims, that Christians and any Jews allowed to remain would become dhimmis in short order. Finally, of course, there’s the dreadful human rights record of every other Arab nation to consider. Would a Palestinian-ruled Israel ape Syria or Saudi Arabia? Maybe not, but there’s little reason for Israel’s Jewish population to expect anything different, especially given the corruption and human rights violations of the Palestinian Authority, and the anti-Semitic ravings of Hamas.

The USCEIO is of the same mind as its leftist allies: Palestinians deserve the right of national self-determination, but Jews do not. It states as much in its FAQ:

The US Campaign does not endorse either a one-state or a two-state solution, but rather upholds the Palestinian right to self-determination. We believe the Palestinians must be empowered to exercise this right, and that the international community has a responsibility towards the right of the Palestinian to self-determination.

No mention of such a right for Israelis, or Israeli Jews, is mentioned anywhere on its web site.

That the USCEIO marches in lockstep with the far left is no surprise. Among the organizations that are members of this anti-Israel umbrella is a veritable Who’s Who of the American extreme left. Among the member groups are long-time Communist fronts like the US Peace Council and the National Lawyers Guild, the International Socialist Organization, Code Pink, Global Exchange, the Council for the National Interest, the International Solidarity Movement, the U.S. Green Party, the Institute for Policy Studies, We Are Wide Awake (a project of anti-Semitic web site Veterans Today‘s Eileen Fleming), the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, the War Resisters League, If Americans Knew, the Rachel Corrie Foundation, and the U.S. Campaign fro Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.

Of course, the secular left is not alone in the USCEIO, which includes a wide range of church groups. Among these are the General Board of Global Ministries and General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, the Methodist Federation for Social Action, Episcopal Peace Fellowship, the Episcopal Peace Fellowship Israel Palestine Network, the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, the PCUSA’s Israel Palestine Mission Network, the American Friends Service Committee, United Methodist Kairos Response, Pax Christi, Friends of Sabeel-North America, Christian Peacemakers Teams, Unitarian Universalists for Justice in the Middle East, and the Fellowship of Reconciliation.

Don’t think, however, that these Christian organizations (other than the Methodist General Board of Global Ministries, which I’ll return to in a moment) have a lot of say within the USCEIO. Of the five staff of the Campaign, the two most important and visible are Jewish, while the other three are of indeterminate religious background (though one has an Arabic name). The membership of the Steering Committee is especially interesting. For at least the last five years, one member has been Judith LeBlanc, a vice-chair of the Communist Party USA and national field organizer for Peace Action, which is also a USCEIO member organization. Another is Phyllis Bennis, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Yet another is Felicia Eaves, whose connections to the far left include Black Voices for Justice and the Marxist-dominated United for Peace and Justice, and who has been a featured speaker at events sponsored by the likes of the neo-Stalinist International ANSWER. Also on the Steering Committee are members from the Muslim American Society, American Muslims for Palestine, and the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. Left-wing Judaism has a representative in Sydney Levy of Jewish Voice for Peace (remember this name–it will come up again tomorrow). Bringing up the rear are a couple of leftist media types (Andrew Kadi of Adalah-NY and Bill Fletcher Jr. of Black Commentator.com) and two representatives of Christian organizations: David Wildman of the United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries and Mike Merryman-Lotze of the American Friends Service Committee.

Merryman-Lotze is the Israel-Palestine Program Director for the AFSC, but has otherwise kept a low profile on the Internet. Wildman, the “Executive Secretary for Human Rights and Racial Justice in Mission Contexts and Relationships” at the UMGBGM, is another story. He has been talking about Israeli “apartheid” and “colonialism” for years, as well as advocating for divestment. He has said of Zionism, “It’s a theology that is deeply exclusivist and racist.” An article of his appeared at Electronic Intifada in which he wrote:

The New Testament was written in a context of Roman colonial rule, discrimination, and military occupation in Palestine. It also took place in the midst of an active armed resistance movement (the Zealots) against colonialism and occupation. So, if we want to understand fully the meaning of biblical texts for today, it is helpful to listen to Palestinians who are facing the same dynamics of military occupation, colonial control of their land and apartheid-like discrimination.

You decide just what that is supposed to mean, or justify.

The USCEIO is not alone in its efforts to infiltrate the churches. A close ally in this effort is Jewish Voice for Peace. Both the staff and board of directors of JVP are shot through with individuals with resumes full of left-wing activism:

*Executive Director Rebecca Vilkomerson: “Rebecca has over fifteen years of experience in community organizing, advocacy, program development and fundraising in the United States and Israel.”

*Director of Advocacy Sydney Levy: “Sydney has worked for over 15 years in nonprofits advocating for LGBT human rights organizing for media justice, and assisting in the preparation of death row appeals.”

*Administrative Director Jane Suskin: “Long active in justice, peace and feminist causes.”

*Board member and treasurer Jethro Eisenstein: “Since 1971 he has been involved in the longest-running civil rights case in New York, which established a right to sue the NY Police Department to restrict surveillance of peaceful political activity.”

Board member and secretary Jordan Ash: “He later dropped out of college to work as a union organizer for SEIU. After 12 years working at ACORN, where he played a leading role in the group’s campaign against predatory mortgage lending, he returned to the labor movement and now works for SEIU again.”

*Board member Noah Winer: “…was a founding campaign strategist at MoveOn.org from 2003 to 2010.”

You get the idea. JVP is a political organization, and needless to say not a Christian one. It has no interest whatsoever in Christian theology or ethics, and doesn’t care what the right stance would be for Christian denominations to take would be based on their own beliefs or interests, and yet is heavily involved in the effort to get the denominations meeting this summer to buy into its divestment/boycott/sanctions agenda.

Jewish Voice for Peace has put out a flyer in connection with the Methodist General Conference that you can see here. Among the anti-Israel voices quoted in it are Archbishop Desmond Tutu (who thinks that pretty much everything is related to apartheid), and a Holocaust survivor named Hajo Meyer, a favorite of the anti-Semite set who has expressed support for the bizarre theory that most Jews are not really Jews, but descendants of a Central Asian people called the Khazars; referred to Zionism as “racist and separatist”; and declared that the Jewish state is the modern equivalent of Nazi Germany. He’s also claimed that the definition of “anti-Semitism” has changed:

“Formerly an anti-Semite was somebody who hated Jews because they were Jews and had a Jewish soul. But nowadays an anti-Semite is somebody who is hated by Jews.”

That’s the kind of person that Jewish Voice for Peace wants United Methodists to listen to next week.

Tomorrow: the tactics being used by the political left to infiltrate the churches.

(Cross-posted at Stand Firm.)

 

Infiltrating the Churches: Part 1

Yes, well. Between Holy Week stuff, finishing a D.Min class paper, and regular pastoral duties, I’ve fallen down on the whole biblical commentary thing. Sorry about that.

I will come back to it. But for anyone who is still checking this blog out, I have something I have to do this week that I’m also cross-posting at Stand Firm. It has to do with Israel.

As several large mainline denominations prepare to meet in the next several months, political leftists are planning on using them to attack Israel and advance their agendas.

At their denominational meetings, both the United Methodist Church (April 24-May 4) and the Presbyterian Church USA (June 30-July 7) will be dealing with resolutions calling for divestment from Israel, and labeling the Israeli occupation of the West Bank “apartheid.” But it is not only Methodist and Presbyterian activists who are pushing those actions.

The denominational activists that are serving as the fronts for the political left include United Methodist Kairos Response and the Israel Palestine Mission Network of the PCUSA. Behind them is a collection of organizations of the far left, including:

• U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (USCEIO)
• Jewish Voice for Peace
• Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
• Rachel Corrie Foundation
• Students for Justice in Palestine
• Green Party
• St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee

In addition, there are organizations from other Christian denominations that are not content to allow fellow Christians to conduct their own business, but rather are sticking their nose in to support the anti-Israel agenda. Among these are the American Friends Service Committee, the United Church of Canada’s Israel Palestine Network, and the United Church of Canada Maritime Conference Working Group for Just Peace for Israel-Palestine. Friends of Sabeel-North America, an interfaith group that supports the work of the anti-Semitic Sabeel Center in Jerusalem, is also helping.

All of the above organizations, among others, will have a presence of some kind at the United Methodist General Conference that begins next week.

Leading and coordinating this effort is the “national organizer” for the USCEIO, Anna Baltzer. Her biography on the USCEIO site describes her this way:

Anna is an award-winning lecturer, author, and activist for Palestinian human rights. Baltzer has appeared on television more than 100 times (including The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) and lectured at more than 500 universities, schools, churches, mosques, synagogues, and policy institutes around the world with her acclaimed presentation, “Life in Occupied Palestine: Eyewitness Stories & Photos,” and her full-color book: Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories. Both her DVD and her book are available in our store. She is co-founder of US Campaign member group, the St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee.

Discover the Networks fills out the picture with stuff that the USCEIO would rather you not know:

Baltzer has worked with both the International Solidarity Movement and the International Women’s Peace Service (IWPS). The West Bank-based IWPS, which supports “acts of nonviolent resistance to end [Israel’s] brutal and illegal military Occupation,” is a communist organization that grew out of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. [Note the prominence that the IWPS gives to Baltzer's book on their home page--DF]

Adamantly opposed to Israel’s existence as an independent “Jewish state,” Baltzer favors a “one state solution” where Jews would be a minority surrounded by Arabs sympathetic to Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

In an article she penned in March 2007, Baltzer condemned “the so-called ‘Land of Israel’” for practicing “ethnic discrimination” in many forms. She added:

“I know what Israel will say: this is only self-defense. On some level this is correct: if Israel desires control the territory that it has for more than two-thirds of its history, and to remain the state exclusively of the Jewish people, and to be democratic as well, it must find a way to create a Jewish majority on a strip of land in which the majority of inhabitants are not Jewish. There are only so many possible solutions: there’s forced mass transfer … there’s mass imprisonment (10,000 plus Palestinians are being held in Israeli jails as I write), there’s genocide … or there is apartheid.”

“Apartheid and segregation,” Baltzer concluded, “failed in South Africa and the United States and they will fail in Israel and Palestine. Ethnocentric nationalism failed in Nazi Germany and it will fail in Zionist Israel. But … [w]e cannot wait for things to get worse. The ethnic cleansing and apartheid have gone on long enough.”

In August 2007, Baltzer was the featured speaker at a Sabeel-sponsored conference in Berkeley, California. Claiming that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was rooted in a dispute over land rather than religion, she explained that Muslim Arabs do not hate Jews per se, but only resent that the latter have stolen their real estate.

In May 2008 Baltzer spoke to the Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine, where she again denounced the “Apartheid Wall” but never once mentioned the epidemic of suicide bombings that had necessitated its creation. When a student attendee asked Baltzer to comment on those suicide bombings, she replied that while such acts were certainly abominable, they needed to be understood in context; that is, one could hardly expect the Palestinians to act non-violently in the face of their suffering.

An apologist for suicide bombers, an opponent of the existence of Israel as a Jewish state and Israeli self-defense, a denizen of the far left: this is who is leading the effort to infiltrate the highest decision-making bodies of the mainline churches in order to use them in the service of the anti-Israel agenda of the extreme left.

Tomorrow: the organizations behind the infiltration effort, and their mainline enablers.

 

Horns of a Dilemma

Jim Winkler is in a quandry. The general secretary of the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society is a pacifist, so he thinks nuclear weapons are bad, BAD, BAD, and that no one including the Iranians should have them. On the other hand, the evil Americans and their puppet Israel (or it is the other way around?), have them, so nothing should be done to stop the Iranians from getting them. Whatever should a peace-and-justice bureaucrat advocate? In the latest GBCS newsletter, he does both:

The drums are pounding once again for war with Iran. This seems almost incomprehensible to me when you consider that the United States has just been defeated in wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, futilely expended trillions of dollars, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and lost thousands of soldiers. Besides these indicators of fruitless endeavors, are proponents of war with Iran not aware it is much larger in both geography and population than either Iraq and Afghanistan and is far more developed in terms of infrastructure?

Really, Jim? Wow, that’s fascinating. I’m going to have to give the Defense Department my copy of the World Almanac so that they can study up.

Who remains to fight this war? The exhausted soldiers who have been sent on three and four tours of duty already? Are there millions more young men and women eager and ready to fight in the hot deserts of Iran? I doubt it.

It is lunacy to think that a successful war with Iran can be accomplished by aerial bombing to destroy its nuclear facilities or by assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists. Those who desire war know full well it will involve vast numbers of soldiers and private military contractors, today’s mercenaries.

Jim may be the one who needs the Almanac. He seems to have confused Iraq with Iran.

He also seems to have adopted a favorite technique of the political left, which is to make stuff up and argue against that, rather than against what your opponents actually say. If Winkler has bothered to follow the actual debate at all, he knows that no one–no one, not even the nefarious neo-cons–have suggested putting boots on the ground in Iran. To the extent that there’s a military option at all, it involves using air assets exclusively. Same for Israel (though there’s been talk there of using a limited number of special forces as well, but that’s for Israel to decide). No one is talking about overthrowing the mullahs, but instead taking out the Iranian nuclear weapons development program. Period.

It remains unknown whether Iran actually is developing a nuclear weapon.

Only to those who spend their time with their fingers stuck in their ears shouting “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran already has 74 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium. Thing is, all you need for commercial electricity-producing reactors is 3% enrichment. While 20% is nowhere near ideal for a bomb (that would be 93%), it still makes bomb construction feasible. And the point is that there’s no other use for uranium enriched to that level. But Winkler gets his information strictly from his far left pals who have taken to considering Iran a paragon of virtue because is opposes The Empire and its Israeli puppet (or is it the other way around?).

Nevertheless, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and 43 other U.S. Senators have introduced Senate Resolution 380 demanding that Iran sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The resolution is prominently posted on the Web site of the principal arm of the Israeli lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Ironically, AIPAC does not insist Israel sign the very same treaty.

It never occurs to Winkler to ask, “if Iran isn’t developing nuclear weapons, why won’t it sign the NPT?” As for Israel, I know it’s impossible for Jimbo to wrap his mind around this, but it’s Israel that has been invaded several times in the last sixty years, Israel that has been threatened by Iran rather than the other way around, and Israel that requires a deterrent that balances out the vast numerical disadvantage that it has vis-a-vis its enemies.

I do not want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. I don’t want Israel or the United States to possess nuclear weapons. I don’t want any country on earth to possess nuclear weapons. They are immoral, useless weapons of mass destruction.

You can almost see the But sign go off in his head.

It is not any more moral for the United States or Israel to possess a nuclear weapon than it is for Iran to own one.

Think about the implications of that. Imagine if instead he had written in 1938 (as pacifists in the West did, in fact), “It is not any more moral for Great Britain or France to have a bigger or more powerful military than Germany.” It’s a formula for war, not for avoiding war. To say a thing like this, one would have to believe that the political intentions, not to mention social and political structure and military history of a given country, is irrelevant. It is just as immoral for Switzerland, which has never in its united history ever attacked another nation (but has also not been attacked because it has been militarily prepared) to possess nuclear weapons to defend itself as for North Korea (which has attacked and tried to conquer its southern neighbor within living memory) to possess them for the purpose of intimidating and possibly attacking its neighbors. That’s a view of the ethics of force in a fallen world that is naive at best, delusional at worst. Of course, if you think the U.S. and Israel are no better than Iran…

I personally think Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is half-mad. But, I confess at times to believing U.S. and Israeli leaders are half-mad, too. I can find no paragons of virtue in this situation.

Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yeah, I can see how you could confuse the three of them.

I suspect even the “Just War” advocates, who always seem to find a convenient justification for war, are having a hard time right now. This would be a war of choice, not a war of last resort.

That’s certainly true–if you’ve been asleep for the last twelve years. Ever since it was first discovered that the Iranians were working on nuclear technology (for “peaceful” and “economic” reasons, in a country sitting on top of one of the world’s largest fossil fuel reserves), the West has tried everything it could think of–diplomacy, sanctions, sweet-talking, threatening–to avoid having to use force to stop them from building The Bomb. Winkler evidently believes that no nation, under any circumstances, has the right to use force before force has been used on it. There’s just one problem with that, and the Iranians are well aware of it: one nuclear weapon with enough power exploded over Israel would destroy the entire nation (not to mention most of the Palestinians, but hey, that’s just collateral damage if we can annihilate the Joooooooos). That’s why the threat to Israel has been spoken of as “existential.” Winkler probably thinks that means Israel is afraid all its copies of Sartre will be torched.

So, here’s what I get out of this: nuclear weapons are bad, and no one should have them. No action, however, beyond what has been shown to be ineffectual should be taken to stop any nation from obtaining them, no matter what it has done or said in the past, or threatened to do in the future, because the United States and Israel have them. Israel, in particular, should take no action to stop the Iranian program until it has been incinerated, because the ethical sensitivities of a mainline Protestant bureaucrat who knows little or nothing about things military would be shattered by Jewish people under threat of annihilation failing to live by an ethical view on the use of force held by only a small portion of Christians.

Glad we got that cleared up, Jimmy. Now, why is it that United Methodists pay you to speak for them again?

 

Not to Be Missed

If you happen to be in Cleveland tomorrow, you might want to drop by the denominational headquarters of the United Church of Christ. As part of the UCC’s celebration of Black History Month, HQ will be welcoming a special speaker:

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is a man of faith, a homiletic genius, a theological scholar and a pastor’s pastor.

As senior pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where he served 36 years, Wright combined his studies of African traditional religions, African music, African-American music and the African-American Religious Tradition with his studies of Judeo-Christian thought to create ministries that addressed the needs of the community and enriched the lives and faith of his congregants by moving ministry, as stated in his own words, “from theory to praxis.”  Describing Wright’s preaching style, the Rev. Otis Moss III, the pastor of Trinity and Wright’s successor, says, “The weight of the holy is upon his words.”

Wright said in a published article: “I have tried to bring those two different worlds together [the academy and the pew] in the context of pastoral ministry in an effort to move an ignored people from hurt to healing and from hate to hope. My mission at Trinity has been to bring those worlds together by using the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the life of Christ as a model for what is possible, of what might be, and of what our faith really is —‘the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.’”

Wright’s efforts made Trinity –– long considered in theological circles as a model for the Black church –– one of the most politically active and socially conscious churches in the nation. When he retired, the church had more than 50 active ministries with social justice advocacy at the core of its theological perspective.

One can understand why the UCC would want to bring in such an important speaker when one considers some of his greatest hits (from Dana Milbank of the Washington Post):

Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks (“God damn America”) and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.

Wright seemed aggrieved that his inflammatory quotations were out of the full “context” of his sermons — yet he repeated many of the same accusations in the context of a half-hour Q&A session this morning.

His claim that the September 11 attacks mean “America’s chickens are coming home to roost”?

Wright defended it: “Jesus said, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles.”

His views on Farrakhan and Israel? “Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter’s being vilified for and Bishop Tutu’s being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I’m anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that’s what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn’t make me this color.”

He denounced those who “can worship God on Sunday morning, wearing a black clergy robe, and kill others on Sunday evening, wearing a white Klan robe.” He praised the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua. He renewed his belief that the government created AIDS as a means of genocide against people of color (“I believe our government is capable of doing anything”).

Yep, that sounds like UCC leadership all over.

 

World Commentary 2

For those who may not be able to hear World magazine’s weekly radio broadcast “The World and Everything In It,” here’s the commentary I offered this weekend:

This weekend, millions of Christians will gather for worship. Most will be worshiping the God of the Bible. Some will be worshiping the god of nature.

This weekend, many liberal churches will be joining together for something called a “preach-in” on the subject of global warming. Interfaith Power and Light, which bills itself as “a religious response to global warming,” is encouraging clergy to hijack their churches’ pulpits for political purposes.

Those who sign up can get “ready-to-go sample sermons on global warming,” Valentine’s Day postcards for policy makers urging them to “curb greenhouse gas emissions,” and a free 30-minute DVD called Preaching for the Planet, presumably to instruct them in the evangelism of the new global warming religion.

There’s nothing wrong with preaching about stewardship, including stewardship of natural resources. The IPL campaign, however, has two primary problems.

First, it treats global warming, and its alleged human origin, as an undisputed fact. Many of the pastors who will join the preach-in are more certain that human beings cause global warming than they are that Jesus rose from the dead. The reality is that a growing number of scientists from climatology and related fields are raising serious and unanswered questions about the global warming thesis. But these questions, often derided as the work of “deniers,” are of no importance to those for whom climate change has become an article of faith more important than the Trinity or the Incarnation.

The second problem is that the pulpit is no place for public policy debate. Moral issues can and should be addressed, of course. But the preach-in goes way beyond that. Clergy who know little beyond slogans about climate science are being asked to proclaim very specific solutions to problems they barely understand. Many of those solutions, in turn, will do grievous harm to the world’s poor and others whom those same preachers claim to care about. Matters such as unintended consequences, however, carry little weight when the religious left is in crusade mode.

 

 

Another Pro-Death Voice Heard

While I haven’t been able to find any official Episcopal Church response to the Komen-Planned Parenthood dustup, the head of the Episcopal Women’s Caucus took to the Intertubes yesterday in a piece published by the Episcopal News Service. The Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton sees this as part of a “war on women”:

There is an undeclared war on women in this country and around the world.

That war would have to do with the fact that girls are far more likely to be chosen for abortions than boys, right? Fat chance.

No one from the Komen Foundation is talking, but from the buzz on the Internet, hundreds of thousands of people – men and women – are pledging not to support the efforts of the organization that made pink ribbons an outward and visible sign of the “race for the cure” to end breast cancer.

So the war on women has to do with people withdrawing their support from the foremost private supplier of funds for breast cancer research, right? Guess again:

That battle was won but the war is far from over. The reproductive rights of women are under sharp attack from the religious and political forces of the evangelical right, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. The battle plan is patently clear: limit women’s access to abortion, birth control, and services after rape and sexual assault by changing laws, state by state, and ensure that government funding is not delivered to any agency that supports reproductive rights in any way.  Do this with a ballot in one hand and a Bible in the other. And when you don’t get what you want, cry “religious intolerance.”

So in Kaeton’s world, the “war on women” has to do pretty much exclusively with any conceivable limitation that could be put on the sacrament of abortion. Got it.

On another front, human trafficking is a mega-billion dollar global industry unregulated by any country or international body. It is a criminal activity ignored and/or tolerated with devastating consequences for the person involved. Trafficking ranks just behind drug and arms trading as the most lucrative forms of commerce. It is no surprise that the vast majority of trafficked persons are women and children. Nor is it any shock that most of those who do the trafficking are men.

What this has to do with the other is mystifying. I am in complete accord, I expect, with Kaeton regarding the horrors of human trafficking, but it is hardly the case that it is “unregulated by any country or international body.” Internationally, there is the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, which went into force in December 2003 and has been ratified by 117 countries, including the United States (November 2005). And human trafficking is illegal in most of the world (though the Episcopal Church can be heard speaking out in favor of it–or at least opposed to doing anything much to stop it–when it involves bringing immigrants illegally into the United States from Mexico). That human trafficking is frequently “ignored and/or tolerated” is certainly true, but that doesn’t mean the international community–with some notable exceptions, such as Thailand, a center of the sex trade, which has yet to ratify the accord–hasn’t acted.

The violence continues unabated. A report released in late December 2011 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that one in four women in the United States suffers “severe physical violence,” and one in five is raped at some time in their life. Millions of women are suffering serious violence quietly at any time.

According to another CDC survey, four women die because of domestic violence every day in the United States of America. For every woman who dies, hundreds keep suffering without any recourse, without any letup in violence. They remain alive, but are not “living” by any dignified definition of the word.

See, to Kaeton opposition to abortion isn’t a valid moral perspective. It’s more like rape, or spousal abuse, or human trafficking.

The recent battle between Komen vs. Planned Parenthood gives us many insights on how women and men of quality can fight back for equality. The fatal flaw in the Komen battle plan was to consider Planned Parenthood just another organization. It is not. It is what it always has been: a movement. Organizations are fine. Movements are better.

Yes sir, Komen surely has learned a lesson, as have the rest of us: oppose Planned Parenthood and the Church of Abortion, as served by the likes of Elizabeth Kaeton, and you will be libeled, slandered, misrepresented, and delegitimized no matter how good anything else you do is.

 

 

 

News From the Front

The Occupy Wall Street movement is melting away as the American people turn away from its pointless drum circles and vague, endless demands and grievances. Even liberal big-city mayors have had enough of the adolescent behavior and entitlement mentality of the protesters, their patience running out as many of their own constituents, even those sympathetic with the occupiers’s political positions, turn on people who seem to think that they are the center of the moral universe because they shout all the right slogans.

That means it is the perfect time for a paean of praise from a mainline church social justice agency, in this case the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society. In its latest newsletter, the GBCS gives us the deep thoughts of the Rev. Sandy Gass, who spent time in one of the biggest outdoor outhouses, Occupy Oakland:

A handmade sign caught my eye at the general strike march called by Occupy Oakland on Nov. 2. Held by a middle-aged “soccer mom,” the sign said: “Sorry for the Inconvenience: We Are Trying to Change the World.”

More than 10,000 demonstrators gathered that day to express their dissatisfaction with corporate power and stark income inequality in the United States. The hand-made signs are powerful personal expressions of ordinary people doing extraordinary things to change the world.

Well, they’d like to think so, but given that the United States is still a democratic republic, where shouting the loudest does little good, that’s doubtful. OWS approval ratings among the electorate are now even lower than those for the Tea Party (though, admittedly, they are still above those of Congress), and by an almost 3-1 margin Americans think big government a greater threat than big business, so it seems unlikely that the statist schemes of the Occupy movement are going to be changing much of anything soon.

We are witnessing no less than a “Revolution of Values:” income equality, paying your fair share, reclaiming public space, open exercise of democracy, regulating corporate greed, restricting corporate takeover of the political system, advocacy for the homeless and the unemployed, forgiveness of debts, open media, health care for all, an opportunity for all to participate in change where they are.

Let’s take a look at those “values” as the Occupy movement has presented them:

•Income equality: other than the Communist elements (and they are there), there actually has been little advocacy of “income equality.” There have been lots of attacks on “the rich,” which seemingly translates better into “rich people we don’t like.” Hence the warm reception that multi-millionaire move director Michael Moore gets from Occupiers, or the total silence regarding the role of George Soros in currency and commodity manipulation and the like, while the conservative Koch brothers are treated as the devil(s) incarnate.

•Paying your fair share: Can someone please tell me what this is? I’ve been waiting for months now for someone to ask the president if he would tell us what the “fair share” is that the 1% should pay. I’ll settle for Rev. Gass. “More” is not an answer. Why would repealing the Bush tax cuts (which would return the top tax rate to 39.4%) be “fair,” as opposed to, say, the mid-1980s rate (50%), or the rate for 1954 (91%) or 1939 (75%)? Why wouldn’t it be fair for all individuals to pay the same rate? Personally, I find all of the whining about other people (it’s always other people) paying their “fair share” to be an argument on the level of the four-year-old who demands another cookie after the three he’s already had because it’s his “fair share.”

•Reclaiming public space: this means, “people of the right political opinions getting to trash both the property rights of owners [Zuccotti Park, for example] or preventing others who are not similarly enlightened from using space that belongs to all citizens.

•Open exercise of democracy: this from people who regularly shout down any opinions they don’t like.

•Regulating corporate greed: so that various levels of government can feed the greed of public unions.

•Restricting corporate takeover of the political system: limiting free speech so that only rich liberals like the aforementioned George Soros can influence the system. By the way, I wonder if anyone connected with Occupy Wall Street has ever publicly chastised the president for on the one hand dressing down the Supreme Court for its decision in Citizens United, and on the other hand becoming the first presidential candidate since the introduction of public financing to spurn the public money and the limits that came with it in favor of raking in record amounts from Wall Street?

•Advocacy for the homeless and the unemployed: the homeless were routinely run out of Occupy tent cities because they were “stealing out stuff.” As for the unemployed, further bloating the government is hardly the answer to unemployment.

•Forgiveness of debts: more four-year-old whining. The debts that OWS wants forgiven are those of people who freely accepted them in return for either a good (housing) or a service (education). I can sympathize and then some with people who got caught in the housing bubble, because a lot of them were suckered into a market they couldn’t afford to be in by a federal government run by people who no more understand market economics than they understand string theory. As for student debt, their real gripe ought to be with the colleges and universities that provided them with worthless degrees in LGBT Studies and Political Science (my own major) that they weren’t able to turn into real jobs.

•Open media: by which they actually mean, “media that parrots our political line.”

•Health care for all: paid for by Santa’s elves.

•An opportunity for all to participate in change where they are: I have no idea what she means by this, especially since so many people traveled across state lines, in some instances across the country, to take part in an Occupy tent city.

Are these really the “values” that Christians should be identified with, at least in the embodiment they receive in the Occupy movement?

Before the Occupy Movement, there was little discussion of the outsized power of financial institutions and the diminishing fortunes of the middle class.

Apparently “Occupy Wall Street” is an anagram for “solipsism.” The notion that before people started camping out and banging drums incessantly no one was talking about financial regulation or the state of the middle class suggests that Rev. Gass lived in a cave before September, or that she’s illiterate, or–the most likely explanation–that she believes that until she and other like-minded say something, it has never been said.

We have created a big tent: The 99% are people of all ages, races, occupations, political affiliations and religious beliefs. We are learning to work together with respect to address the critical challenges of our time.

The 99% whom Rev. Gass and her fellow Occupiers so arrogantly claim to represent (40% of whom would claim to be political conservatives) include everyone making under $500,000 a year. Now, I recognize that the 99%-1% figures are simply slogans meant to stir up envy against “them,” but is OWS really claiming that people who make $475,000 a year are the oppressed middle class, while those making $525,000 are the plutocratic oppressors? My point is simply that this is just mindless economic Manichaeism, rather than meaningful discussion of public policy.

I know as a United Methodist minister that these are issues we have been dealing with for a long time in our churches. The situation has become even more dire, as our members have lost homes to foreclosure, lost jobs with little prospect for finding new work and no longer can financially support the church as they used to.

She’s right about this, of course–most Americans know someone in these dire straits, including members of my own congregation over the last couple of years. The issue isn’t whether some people are in a bad way, or even whether to support and help them through it, but how to deal with prudential issues of policy in a way that actually improves conditions within a fallen world. Utopianism of any kind, including the Christian version that believes we can bring in the Kingdom of God on our own initiative by tweaking legislation and tax rates, is completely unhelpful.

There’s more, but you get the point. Sad to say, I doubt very much that Rev. Gass (who says in conclusion that when she’s involved with Occupy Oakland, she hears Jesus, John Wesley, and Gandhi say, “I’ve got your back”) is likely to.

 

Theocrat Watch XIII (UPDATED)

The Rev. Jim Winkler, the general secretary of the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, is a left-wing  theocrat. He wishes to impose his particular religious vision of society on America. Time to man the barricades!

Winkler writes in the latest edition of his agency’s newsletter that if we would just read the Book of Isaiah, we would see what God wants the United States to look like:

Hear these words from Isaiah 48:18: “Oh that you had paid attention to my commandments! Then your peace (prosperity in the NRSV) would have been like a river, and your righteousness (success in the NRSV) like the waves of the sea.”

I confess to impatience and frustration that we continue to ignore scripture.

I take it from this that Winkler, like Rousas Rushdoony and the other “dominionist” boogeymen of the religious left, wants to apply the Old Testament law to America, since we’ve been neglecting those commandments.

The prophet Isaiah was awakened to two realities: the awesome holiness of Yahweh and the depth of his own nation’s sin. Like the prophet Amos, Isaiah furiously assailed the powerful, unscrupulous officials who governed the nation, as well as the venal judges who had conspired to rob the helpless of their rights. Read the first 10 chapters of the Book of Isaiah and you will find him condemning the upper classes who were rich and pampered, concerned only for material possessions and pleasures without moral standards or faith in God.

Does any of this sound familiar as we look at our present condition in the United States of America: in a land where the rich are getting incredibly richer; in a land where immigrants, the kind of people we used to welcome, are now being condemned, deported, denied health care and education; in a land where one in four children goes to bed hungry every night; in a land where we round up and incarcerate a remarkable number of black and brown men?

Actually, what he describes in the second of those paragraphs doesn’t sound all that much like Isaiah 1-10 (was Judah really jailing large numbers of racial minorities?), at least to the extent that Isaiah is describing the idolatry, faithlessness, and disobedience of what is supposed to be a unified, religiously homogenous people who were to be ruled by God’s law. Last time I checked, that didn’t fit the profile of these United States.

Isaiah is telling us that God challenges us to muster sufficient theological imagination to see how divine purpose is unfolding in ordinary events of the world. What is the “new thing” that God is about to do?

It’s informative as well as interesting that Second Isaiah does not try to “foretell” what God will be doing. Rather, Isaiah prods the attention of his audience backward into images of “the way in the wilderness” and “rivers in the desert.”

Not sure what “Second Isaiah” Winkler is reading. Isaiah 40-66 in my Bible is full of forward-looking prophecy regarding what God is going to do in the life of His people and the world, including prophecy regarding the Messiah, who is never once spoken of as working for the United States government.

Isaiah speaks to a people like us: a people in Babylon who live in the midst of a secular, pagan culture that promises its gods can give prosperity, success and happiness.

Funny thing about that: Isaiah never once says that the people in exile should try to take over the government of the Babylonian Empire and transform it in the image of theocratic Israel. Must be in the lost chapters to which only mainline bureaucrats have access.

Somehow, hope surrounds us. I believe the large majority of the American people support the agenda the Occupy Wall Street movement promotes:

• Tax the rich and corporations
• End the wars, bring the troops home, cut military spending
• Protect the social safety net, strengthen Social Security and improved Medicare for all
• End corporate welfare for oil companies and other big business interests
• Transition to a clean-energy economy and reverse environmental degradation
• Protect workers’ rights, including collective bargaining, create jobs and raise wages
• Get money out of politics

Yes, that’s the great hope, the magnificent vision, the extraordinary future which Isaiah lays before us: Occupy Wall Street.  Campaign finance reform and green pie-in-the-sky. That’ll preach.

We are haunted by our lack of imagination.

A few days ago, a United Methodist pastor sent me an email that included these words:

Is there any way to retain democracy and a government by and for the people while eliminating capitalism at the same time? A free enterprise system based on capitalism and the concept of a democracy go hand in hand.It seems Moody knew what he was talking about, doesn’t it? [Winkler had earlier referred to Dwight Moody's dismissal of biblical scholars dividing up Isaiah into three parts--Moody wondered why we should why bother with two more Isaiahs when most Methodists don’t know the first one?] I have no doubt this pastor should read Isaiah: “Oh you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey” (Isaiah 10:1-2)!

That last verse, written over 2000 years before Adam Smith, is obviously meant to indicate that capitalism is evil. It was–what’s the word?–prophetic.

Capitalism, as I explained a while back, is hardly a system of divinely revealed economics. Rather, it is the best system  human beings have been able to come up with to govern economic life in a fallen world. It is also, in its present form, an incredibly complex system that reflects the presence of literally billions of components–people, companies, governments, laws, etc.–and their countless interactions. But Winkler thinks we can throw that entire system out, replace it with a collection of abstract notions derived from the religious left’s idiosyncratic reading of the Israelite prophets sprinkled liberally with discredited Marxist bromides, and impose it all on a religiously and politically diverse population.

That, my friends, is the very definition of a theocrat.

UPDATE: My friend Joseph Slife corrects my ordination of Winkler. He is in fact a layman. I’ve fixed it in the first sentence.