In a valley far away ...

geoffff


Daphne Anson has encountered another creepy case of clerical antizionism in the heart of the Old Dart  herself. What a surprize. How things have changed.

Here is a conversation in progress with Mr Jeremy Moodey  the CEO of the British Christian NGO the name of which I have forgotten but used to be BibleLands.

1. Here is BibleLands' chief executive's latest comment on the previous thread - it speaks volumes:
   By what measure can Khaled Abu Toameh be regarded as impartial? He writes for the ultra-Zionist Jerusalem Post as well as the fairly loony Gatestone Institute, founded by the pro-Israel and Islamophobic neo-con Nina Rosenwald. His 2010 article suggesting that Palestinians in East Jerusalem are happy to remain under Israeli occupation is a travesty of the truth, as any street survey in East Jerusalem would surely reveal. He is probably the only Palestinian in the world who believes that illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are not the principal obstacle to a negotiated peace. No wonder he is the darling of the Zionist lobby; after all, Melanie Phillips calls him an "unflinching truth-teller". Anyone with Mad Melanie's nihil obstat has got to be pretty suspect in my book.

   Reply
2. 
   Jeremy Moodey14 August 2012 03:04

   Daphne - thanks for the free plug! Our old name of BibleLands was never intended to be a comment on Jewish claims to the land. As a charity focused solely on supporting Christian social witness in the lands of the Bible, helping the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, we corporately take no view on the matter. I have my own views of course, and it is on this personal basis that I tweet and contribute to blogs.
   
   We do not have a statement of faith because we are inter-denominational charity, unlike the primarily evangelical Barnabas Fund, for whose work we have a great respect. If anything, our statement of faith, and that of our Christian partners in the Middle East, is simply one Nicene creed.
   
   Also, if you look very carefully, there was no cross in our old logo. It was (rather impenetrably) two middle fingers touching an upright pole and creating the impression of a cross. Our new cross is more explicit, emphasising our confidence as a Christian charity.
   
   You are of course entitled to think that we have "lost our way", but changing from BibleLands to Embrace the Middle East had nothing to do with theology or Christian identity and everything to do with discarding a brand that no longer seemed relevant to many younger Christians in the UK and replacing it with a name which describes exactly what we do: embracing those in need, whatever their faith or ethnic background, with the compassion and love of Christ. The needs in the Middle East are enormous (your blog seems to imply that the region does not need help!) and the range and impact of Christian social witness, even in somewhere like Gaza (where Christians account for 0.1% of the population) is humbling. We want to do our part to support local Christians as they are 'salt and light' in their community. Surely you would not object to such a ministry?

   Reply
3. 
   Daphne Anson14 August 2012 04:05

   Jeremy (if I may), the blog above is effectively a guestpost by Ian G.: the words are his, and I cannot speak for him.
   With regard to Gaza, I note that Abu Toameh, among others, has recently drawn attention to the dire plight of Christians there at the hands of the Islamists.
   I am rather perturbed at the implication that young Christians no longer think the Bible is of relevance, and fear a Sizer-like influence may be at work, deleterious to Israel.

   Reply
4. 
   Jeremy Moodey14 August 2012 04:16

   Thanks for the clarification Daphne. I assumed that by re-posting Ian G's comments you were endorsing them. Nothing in my post was intended to imply that younger Christians think the Bible is irrelevant. We absolutely believe in the Bible, which is why we promote a ministry in Jesus' name focused on nourishing the hungry and thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked and healing the sick (Matt 25:31-46). But many thought that as 'BibleLands' we distributed Bibles (which we don't). Some even confused us with Bible Society!

   Reply
   
   

   Replies
   

   
   
   

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Daphne Anson14 August 2012 04:25
   Ah, yes, the Foreign and British Bible Society, as ( believe it used to be called. btw, I have an interest in Jewish-Christian relations, which is why my blog carries posts such as this from time to time. Ian G is one of my most long-standing readers, and I value his contributions.
   Reply

   
   
5. 
   Ian G14 August 2012 05:15

   I've copied the old logo and expanded it. Detail is lost, but if that's two middle fingers touching an upright pole then they are very long, very straight and rather thick fingers!

   Reply

My comments -- and there are several -- are pending -- but they went like this


"Daphne - thanks for the free plug! Our old name of BibleLands was never intended to be a comment on Jewish claims to the land. As a charity focused solely on supporting Christian social witness in the lands of the Bible, helping the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, we corporately take no view on the matter. I have my own views of course, and it is on this personal basis that I tweet and contribute to blogs."

You see, this is what troubles me most about clerical and especially Christian antizionism.

Of course Mr Moodey has "his own views". Daphne has nailed this in a phrase. That single paragraph of his that Daphne transposed here says more about "his views" than he probably realises himself. The man is in mind lock down.

It's an easy diagnosis to make because there is so much of it about. It is because of climate change. In the worst cases there's not much that can be done about it.

But that's not what troubles most. What troubles most is the  unmistakeable but very peculiar odour of agnosticism  from the general  direction of another venerable Christian institution and I most certainly do not mean that in a religious sense though you can take it any way you like.

Run that past us again please. Some things need reading twice.

" Our old name  ... was never intended to be a comment on Jewish claims to the land. As a charity focused solely on supporting Christian social witness in the lands of the Bible, helping the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, we corporately take no view on the matter."

Excuse me?

Mr Moodey, does this mean that your old British charity (that incidentally I have heard of as far away as Australia)  in 2012  takes no view on whether the Jewish state of Israel has a right to exist?

It is agnostic?

{I've already forgotten the new name by the way. Speaking corporately)


The strangest thing. The exchange started here when Mr Moodey took exception to Daphne's defence of Christians who are in  a crisis of  persecution everywhere in the Middle East outside of formal Israeli jurisdiction.  . Look at this stuff

Jeremy Moodey12 August 2012 10:40

Since she cites me in her blog, I challenge 'Daphne Anson' to speak to Coptic Christians to see whose analysis - mine or Khaled Abu Toameh's - is more accurate. And I wish it were true that "Israel remains the only country in the Middle East where [Christians] feel safe and comfortable". Since most Israeli Christians are Palestinian, and therefore treated as second-class citizens in the Jewish State, this is far from the case. The discrimination against them has been well documented by Israeli human rights NGOs such as Adalah and ACRI. One of the harshest Israeli laws affecting Palestinian Christians is the so-called Family Reunification Law, which even some Jewish Knesset members have described as racist. Israel's defenders emphasise Muslim persecution of Christians elsewhere in the Middle East as a means of deflecting attention from Israel's violation of international law and its oppression of the Palestinian people.

SErs


His analysis?  Seriously. You can only shake your head.  Read the replies. I've never seen an analysis so thoroughly demolished.

I have some more questions for Mr Moodey after he deals with his agnostic issues but it is striking how the image revamp is linked to appealing to what he terms younger Christians . They prefer their religion unmixed with Zionism I can imagine them saying. Indeed  to be as overtly free of any recognition of the modern Jewish state as possible and are prepared to change their names images and themselves to do that.

What else are they prepared to do to be seen to distance themselves from  modern Jews and the modern Jewish state? Supersessionism.? Evolve? Change their religion? 

That's not for me to say -- but I will say this --- I'd be worried by that if I was a Christian as it obviously worries Ian G.. After all the stakes are high. 

 This is a political blog so I couldn't possibly say; but they look a lot like the old Christians to me. The very old ones. How sad to see them back.

Here is a musical interlude dedicated to the younger Christians of the type it seems to these old eyes  Mr Moodey is courting.