The Anglican Church of Canada’s Primate, Linda Nicholls has written an article explaining how the church decides to align itself with a particular social or political cause. She says:
Let me share how our church approaches that discernment and share a recent example in the life of our church. The general secretary and I are sometimes approached to add our signatures to a public letter on a significant public issue. Deliberation on the issue requires careful listening to a variety of sources. It is governed first by statements and resolutions of General Synod. Then we turn to Church House staff with knowledge of the issue and to our archivist, Laurel Parson. We also explore where our current partnerships and working relationships are implicated by what we might say.
We explore the theological questions embedded in the issue. What gospel principles are at the core of this matter? Where does our baptismal covenant intersect with it? Is this an issue of justice; dignity of human persons; care for creation or love of neighbour?
One might be tempted to leap recklessly to the conclusion that “gospel principles” would nudge the church into questioning why, during the pandemic, Canada’s health care system finds the time to continue murdering babies in abortion mills but has to postpone almost all elective surgery. Or, if it wants to look farther afield, condemn China’s crushing of freedom in Hong Kong or, indeed, of its own people.
But why bother with these peccadilloes when another chance to condemn Israel presents itself?
From here:
We write to you with great concern about Canada’s silence regarding the plans of the current coalition government of Israel to propose a vote in the Knesset (likely July 1st) on annexing a significant part of the occupied Palestinian territories. These plans constitute a grave breach of Canadian and international law, specifically Article 147 of the IV Geneva Convention, prohibiting the appropriation of property. This silence of the Canadian government is puzzling in light of the recent vote at the UN affirming the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, Canada’s policy position on Palestine-Israel, and its staunch support for the rule of law.
These folks don’t consider themselves anti semetic. They just recommend measures which make it hard for the Israelis to survive. Looks like anti semetism to me!
It also neglects the fact that Transjordan illegally annexed the West Bank from the British Mandate in about 1920, complete with condemnations from the League of Nations. Presumably, unlike the Falklands, the British authorities concluded that the land wasn’t worth the cost of retaking it.
If the Anglican church would spend a little less time promoting social issues and a little more time promoting Gods saving grace I think we would be living in a better world.
In the Old Testament times, the Jews had again and again misjudged and killed God’s messengers. God was patient with His people. Finally God allowed the Babylonians to discipline the Jews. In the New Testament times, Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 by a pagan Roman general. From the early fourth century on, Jerusalem became a “Christian” city. For thousands of years, Jews and Arabs (descendants of Abraham) lived in relative peace and indifference towards each other in the Middle East. The creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948 in the land at that time primarily inhabited by Arabs changed everything. Please note that not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs. Since 1948, the population of Christians has been on the decline in the Holy Land. I personally believe that the earthly Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Christians should look forward to living in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21), which shall not pass away. On the new earth, the nations will live together in peace (Revelation 22:2).
A careful review of the source of the various policies, statements, etc. put forth by ACC, PCC, ELCA, et al. can be found to be “governed first” by those of The World Council of Churches, Geneva.
————————————————————————————————————–
“The lawful status of Yehuda, Shomron and Gaza is that they are part of the Mandate for Palestine territory that remained actively designated for close settlement by Jews at the close of 1922. The purpose of “close settlement” was to facilitate the Jews “reconstituting” their national homeland. What is now Jordan, was originally part of the area designated for close settlement by Jews. In 1922, a few months after signing the Mandate as the Mandatory power, or trustee, and, as allowed by the Mandate, Britain “withheld or postponed” the close settlement provisions for the lands east of the Jordan River. What Britain was NOT allowed to do was cede land to a foreign power, and so to Abdullah, a Saudi Arabian-illegal. Further, while “close settlement” could be withheld or postponed, it could not be terminated, which is therefore an unlawful consequence of the creation of Jordan. The Mandate was a trust agreement created pursuant to Article 22 of The League of Nations Charter, that labeled such trusts as “sacred trusts”. The League of Nations or The United Nations as per Article 80 of its Charter did NOT abolish the right of the Jews to their homeland. The Mandate and The UN through Article 80 only incorporated into International Law the Jews’ rights to their Land, as well as creating a formal mechanism to help the Jews realize their pre-existing rights.
The right to create our homeland is vested in the Jewish People, not the Government of the modern State of Israel. Israel as a State can decide its own borders. Israel cannot however surrender a right that does not belong to her.
To summarize: rights established by a Trust cannot be withdrawn (other than the terms of the Trust, and that does not apply here). If the UN sanctions creation of a Palestinian state on Mandate Lands, the UN is proving thereby that there is no such thing as International Law:indeed, the UN would be stealing our Land.”
Michael Chenkin, March 30, 2011 ‘Israpundit’