Galloway scores an own goal...

George Galloway, Respect Party MP for Bradford West, has missed an opportunity to debate the Middle East crisis, and speak up for Palestinians. Instead he stormed out of a debate in Oxford University Christ Church College because he found out late that his opponent was an Israeli citizen. Bloggers have accused him of being anti-Semitic as a result, and there is little defence I wish to offer here. Surely, in Respect, one should be willing to argue a case against opponents. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/21/george-galloway-debate-israeli-oxford

Syria's children are suffering most due to civil war

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-children-conflicts-biggest-casualty-030801222.html

We need to remember the suffering of all people irrespective of nationality and creed and pray for peace.

Israel - William Hague, The Hague and political fears

The UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has recently spoken out in support the two state solution and urged Israel to seek peace - this because Israel's policy of building on Palestinian land (especially the area known as E1 which will divide the Palestinian area) is losing it international support Hague warns Israel is losing international support over Palestine as people vote in General Election Hague points out that "An independent Palestinian state alongside Israel has been the basis of the US-backed Middle East peace process for almost 20 years." The State of Israel has of course just had elections, and we will wait and see what the policy of the new administration is, but it seems Netanyahu will be Prime Minister once again. In a further development Reuters reports that The Palestinian Authority may take Israel to the Hague Court over its building policy.

Israel - Conservative Friends are not helping - Oborne

Peter Oborne has written an interesting piece in the Daily Telegraph. This concerns the influence that Israeli politicians have in the Conservative Party, and the negative consequences that will build up if the UK government doesn't speak truthfully to the Jewish State. The cowardice at the heart of our relationship with Israel

According to Oborne, present Israeli policy in settlement development and expansion in the West Bank will ultimately lead to disaster, where it is forced to accept a one state solution instead of a two state solution. As a consequence, Israel will either no longer be a Jewish state, because Palestinians and Arabs will form a majority, or it will be forced to treat Palestinians as second class citizens in an apartheid-like situation. 

Israel to build 3000 more homes - in defiance of UN

The State of Israel is to build another 3,000 homes in East Jerusalem in response to UN recognition of Palestine as an observer non-member state observer non-member state.

The BBC report suggests the plan will effectively cut the West Bank into two. This is really a provocative act and a snub to the UN. The BBC says that "An Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said some of the new units would be built between Jerusalem and the settlement of Maaleh Adumim. Plans to build settlements in the area, known as E1, are strongly opposed by Palestinians, who say the development will cut the West Bank in two, preventing the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state." There are now 500,000 Israeli settlers living in the Palestinian areas.

Yeshua Explored - Steve Maltz

   Premier Radio has been show-casing Steve Maltz - Yeshua Explored material . I have previously posted this on the Premier Radio forum. Some of this material I like and agree with, and I haven't read or listened to it all, but these are my thoughts. Firstly, I agree we need to embrace our Hebrew Christian roots and read and appreciate the Old Testament in its correct context without losing our own ethnic identity. There is a subtle Christian zionist agenda in Steve's work, but that is not my main point here. My main question arises out of a desire to try and understand Jesus within the context of a form of second temple Judaism, that of the Scribes and Pharisees, that Jesus was himself strongly critical of. Steve for instance quotes from the Mishnah - 'the tradition of the elders' and the Talmud which really set aside the Torah - (which is why Jesus was so critical of it).

   First century Judaism did not have a united voice about what it was to be a good Jew, so we had the Saducess, the Pharisees, the Qumran community etc, and the follows of John the Baptist and Jesus. Steve also contrasts the Hebrew way of thinking with the Greek way of thinking of Aristotle and Plato. Again a lot of good here. But my question arises because Greek thinking was in Israel for several centuries prior to the Messiah. They ruled the land prior to the Romans. Compare if you will the political structure of Plato's city Polis in the Republic, with the behaviour of the Scribes and Pharisees. Plato held that a city state should be ruled by Philosopher Kings (the Scribes and Pharisees) with security by a well paid military (the Roman army) with the rest of the populace reduced to mere productive workers (the common Jewish man and woman who Jesus championed).

   Often as well, the Greek speaking Jews, who lived in Israel and elsewhere around the Mediterranean Sea, often lived lives that were truer to the heart of the Jewish way of life than the leaders in Israel who were elitist. We see this in Acts where seven Greek speaking Christian Jews (including Phillip and Stephen) were placed in charge of the food supply for the Christian community. In fact Paul often preached first to Greek speaking Jews on his missionary journeys, and these Greek Jews formed the foundation for the Christian Church that arose in Europe - we should offer a great deal of thanks to these Jews (and gentiles) who often suffered martyrdom for their faith. But the Greek influence in the Hebrew way of life predates Jesus, and we need to question how it impacted different communities of Jews because it is not straightforward. (Jews living in Alexandria also produced the Septuagint). I could go on about the influence that Philo had upon Augustine and other Church Fathers etc., but that is enough for now.

Female Bishops? Some Rambling Thoughts.

As I am not an Anglican, and I am a man, I am not sure I should be commenting on the question of women bishops. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20433152. But these are my rambling scribbling thoughts anyway - without taking sides ;o).

   Firstly, God can work through a woman as well as a man. Often women in Scripture showed greater faithfulness than men, even the judge Deborah was anointed to lead the people of Israel forward when there was no suitable male leader to do it.

   The Old Testament priests were men - sons of Levi - it is true, but Christ has become the great high priest, and Paul taught the priesthood of all believers. From this one may question the theological justification for having priests and bishops in the Church of England based upon the Old Testament Levitical model. Will the Anglican Church grasp this nettle and instead develop the wider body model of ministry that Paul argued for in Corinthians? I doubt it when there is so much prestige attached to Church positions and the division of clergy and laity along Old Testament lines. Both sides need to view ministry as a vocation towards God and share the gifts around as a community of priests, men and women, ministering to one another and the wider community. We need to be willing to minister faithfully without obvious recognition as well, as the example of Christ demonstrated.

   But are there still separate roles for men and women? Men still can’t enjoy the blessing of bearing children for instance. And does female emancipation lead to male emasculation? The complexity of this question turns around the complexity of both social and sexual needs of men and women. You will find many women actually prefer a male boss to a female boss because a male leader will show more sympathy towards them. A woman is more likely to choose a mate according to his social or employment status, where as a man is more likely to look for beauty and charm in a woman as well as her family capability. However, some women who are not content in domestic, blissful situations want to see their own careers progress.

   Furthermore, what is a bishop for? Is it an apostolic role of real meaning, one who is sent forth often into dangerous situations, or just a ceremonial role where people get to dress up in fancy frocks? If the former, does the New Testament recognise the existence of female apostles? I think you will find mention of Junia, arguably in the context of a female apostle (Romans 16:7). The evangelical church has also often sent its empowered women abroad where they can act in the role of apostle out of sight. Is that right? 

   A number of politicians not noted for their adherence to Christian faith, such as Ben Bradshaw, love to try and put the church in its place by suggesting parliament should legislate so that it is forced to accept modern, secular values. Of course liberal modernism hates long held tradition and principled argument, and the claimed dominance of the world is sure to rally the troops against the measure. Bowing the knee to modernist secular trends is not a good argument for change in the eyes of many Christians.

   It is ironic also how some liberals are quick to blame conservative evangelicals for this, when many such evangelicals I would guess are not that bothered. Giles Fraser writing in the Guardian Comment is Free - (but some opinions are freer than others) can’t help sneering at those he thinks responsible suggesting they are a minority who should be ignored. No desire to end the isolation and bullying of this minority group who he thinks deserve all they get. What Fraser can’t see is that some of the conservatives he describes love to expose the lack of backbone and double standards of some liberals who so easily turn into dictators when given the chance to suppress those who hold to objectivity in ethics. If change comes it must be for good theological reasons.

   A shame also that the present Archbishop of Canterbury should undermine the institution of which he is still leader by expressing his sadness in such a negative manner. He commented that the Church had ‘lost credibility’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9692494/Women-bishops-Churchs-final-no.html As a man of faith one wonders why he speaks with so little faith about an organisation he has responsibility before God for. He is still the chief shepherd of his flock. If he has failed to convince on theological grounds then he should address that and start afresh.