And still they don't get it - Bush and Blair that is.

TC nails it in And still they don't get it - Bush and Blair that is..

People wonder why the church is dismissed as sanctimonoius hypocrites. Well, let's be clear when supposedly Christian leaders are too lazy to call for an end to the killing of children, we have our answer. Especially when one of the bloodstained brothers only days ago claimed his opposition to stem cell research was a pro life position. What nauseating hypocrisy! The message of God has been totally relativised by these modern day Pontius Pilate figures.

See also BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Q&A: Middle East crisis.

Also Tim has some good stuff at ongoing: Lebanon Roundup.

It was salutary that the lectionary Epistle on Sunday was Ephesians 2:11-22 subtitle "Jew and Gentile Reconciled Through Christ" see verses 14-18 (remember the "two" means Jews and Gentiles):

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

Hey, maybe we ought to take some notice of that Bible thing. Seems like it might be slightly relevant here.

Comments

[cavman]

I guess I wasn't aware that Bush & Blair were building the kingdom of God, a kingdom that is not of this world.
They may sound hypocrital, on the surface. But where does the power of the sword (Romans 13) come into play? Is that relevant too? They are acting, not as private citizens, but government leaders.
Should they condemn the killing of children by both sides, or just one? (Sorry, but most press on this side of the pond criticizes Israel for this but not Hezbelloh.)
What recourse is given to Israel? They made the desired concession of land, and still their citizens were attacked. Not as collateral, and regretable, but targeted.
It is great for us to know that Christ is our peace, and as a Christian I don't have to retaliate or hold grudges. But Muslims and Jews don't acknowledge Jesus as Messiah. A government, like Israel, has a God-given responsibility to protect its citizens. The danger they face is not hypothetical, but factual and constant. Iran, Syria and the 2 Hs have declared for all to hear that their goal is to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. I'm not sure how your accusations against Bush & Blair address that larger biblical and political context.

[DaveW]

Cavman,

In what way can any Christian be exempt from working for the Kingdom of God? How can any earthly role have a greater claim on our loyalty and our ethics?

I would agree with John Stott in his commentary on Romans that Romans 13 has been widely abused. He concludes "we are to submit to the state's God given authority, but it has been given for particular and not totalitarian purposes. 'The gospel is equally hostile to tyranny and anarchy'"

Barth in his commentary warns against starting with Romans 13 without having a much wider picture of the whole.

Of course they should condemn the killing of all children and innocent people (well actually of all people - none of us are innocent).

"What recourse is given to Israel". Are you another American who cannot ever see anything wrong done by Israel, who can never believe that anyone could have any form of just grievance against Israel? Get real! All the right is not on one side. There are always reconciliatory options all can take, all can make more progress towards justice. Joel and Amos are two good examples of why this should apply to Israel.

I do not deny that many in the area live in danger, I do deny that present actions reduce that danger. Yet more generations will grow up hating Israel for destroying their families, their homes, their livelihoods, their future - how will that reduce danger in the future?

[cavman]

Dave,
Your view of Americans is quite inaccurate. Sorry, but that is a sweeping generalization.
Bush & Blair were elected to govern their nations, not build the kingdom. They have roles as Christians, and as elected officials. I suspect they have a better grasp of the reality of the situation than us. So I'm uncomfortable condemning them just because they haven't publicly condemned either side. They are under no obligation to do so. But I suspect they are working behind to the scenes to find a resolution I'm not sure exists, sadly.
I think you overstate the case w/Barth. Blair & Bush are not engaged in either tyranny, nor anarchy.
I don't see what options Israel has. They made the concessions that the international community wanted them to make. Yet, Hezbollah continued their aggressive acts, indiscriminately killing Israelis- not focusing on soldiers. The stated aims of Hezbollah and Hamas are not simply to have a land of their own, but to eliminate Israel. They already indoctrinate their people in hatred.
I think there is fairly conclusive evidence that Hezbollah is using the old terrorist tactic of hiding among civilians to do one of 2 things. First, act without recrimination if their opponent wants to appear civilized. Second, turn public opinion against their opponent should they actually retaliate. The second is happening.
Hezbollah and Hamas are not interested in reconciliation. They are not interested in negotiation. If they were, they got what they wanted. They got Gaza. Israel, far from perfect, has made lots of concessions. Remember all those videos of "settlers" being evicted by the Israeli army? The settlements are gone.
Hezbollah should also answer for putting Lebonese civilians in harm's way.

[DaveW]

cavman,

"Your view of Americans is quite inaccurate. Sorry, but that is a sweeping generalization."

Sorry when did I generalise about Americans and about what?

"I think you overstate the case w/Barth. Blair & Bush are not engaged in either tyranny, nor anarchy."

That is a quote from John Stott not Barth, I was using it in response to your use of Romans 13 demonstrating that respected theologians from very different backgrounds both express concern about the use of Romans 13 in the way you suggested.

Your view that all the wrong is on the side of Hezbollah and none by Israel is unhelpful if any progress is going to be made and yet it is one I have heard from many Americans.