Christian Today report– World Vision has dramatically distanced itself from an article by its vice-president criticising Christian Zionism.

Steve Haas wrote All of Me: Engaging the World of Poverty and Injustice for the Lausanne Movement’s website. The paper deals with Christian engagement in issues of poverty and injustice and uses examples from Rwanda, HIV/Aids and Palestine.

Haas said that many evangelicals for more than 60 years had “clung to a very narrow theological narrative that weds Christian theology with a political ideology known as Zionism”. He added that “This theological position has backed the largest and longest occupation of another people group in modern history, an oppressive Israeli legal system which [Archbishop Desmond] Tutu and many other church leaders have called ‘apartheid on steroids’.”

The paper was savaged by pro-Israeli commentators including Robert Stearns, director of Eagles’ Wings, who wrote for the Jerusalem Post that the article was an example of “the toxic mix of lies, ignorance, and half-truths that drive the global movement to delegitimise Israel. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre accused Haas of making comments that “that malign Israel and undermine her very right to exist”.

Now World Vision has issued a statement saying that the paper “does not accurately reflect World Vision’s position and views toward the State of Israel and the Palestinian people and was published without proper World Vision approvals”. The organisation is “concerned about the conclusions drawn from the article by some readers”, it said.

World Vision says that “broad statements such as those in the Lausanne piece oversimplify issues at hand, limit meaningful dialogue, and harden staunch perspectives toward the conflict”. The comments about Christian Zionism in the article were “unhelpfully simplified and combative” and “limit meaningful dialogue between people who care about peace in the region”.

It also indicates a withdrawal of its endorsement of the film “With God on Our Side”, to which Haas does not refer. The film has been criticised for being anti-Israeli. World Vision’s statement says: “While it does a good job of illustrating the plight of Palestinian children and families, the film should have done a better job in presenting the Israeli perspective. It is important that both sides of the conflict be understood and presented.”

While the statement is critical of Haas’ comments on Christian Zionism, it reiterates the core of his arguments in All of Me, saying: “We also believe that sustainable peace cannot be fully realised under the realities of military occupation, as it is a key contributor to poverty in the Palestinian territories and a source of fear and oppression for people there.”

It says that “all Israeli and Palestinian children have the right to live in safety, free from violence, fear and want”, and while it affirms the right of Israel to exist it says: “We also acknowledge the historic connection of Palestinians to the land and affirm a political solution that recognises the right of the Palestinian people to have a state of their own.”

The announcement was described by the chief executive of UK-based charity Embrace the Middle East as “deeply puzzling”. Jeremy Moodey told Christian Today: “In now adopting what it presents as a more even-handed and neutral approach, World Vision is effectively retreating from its long-standing position of bias towards supporting Palestinian demands for justice and an end to occupation.

“This position, which was endorsed by senior World Vision executives and not just Steve Haas, was reflected in several high profile advocacy campaigns which attracted significant criticism from Israel’s supporters. These campaigns seemed to acknowledge the massive asymmetry of power in the Israel/Palestine dispute and challenged the constant abuses of that power by Israel, whether in Gaza or through the illegal military detention and mistreatment of Palestinian children from the West Bank.

“One can only speculate as to the cause of such a disappointing volte-face, but perhaps worries about losing support from American evangelical donors were a factor.”

The controversy represents the second time World Vision has been forced to back down in the face of an adverse reaction from evangelicals. Last year it performed a U-turn after announcing that it would accept same-sex marriage among employees. A backlash from conservatives threatened to deprive it of much of its support base and of large amounts of revenue.

Source: Christian Today

Catholic Herald report– Catholic groups in Britain have criticised MPs for demanding that children as young as five be given sex education lessons.

Responding to the Education Select Committee report Life Lessons: PSHE and SRE in schools, Antonia Tully of SPUC’s Safe at School campaign said: “Parents constantly find themselves having to battle with schools in order to protect their children from inappropriate sex education. The recommendation from the Education Committee that parents can continue to withdraw their children from sex education isn’t addressing this problem.”

She added that new guidelines weren’t needed.

“We already have guidelines for schools which repeatedly stress that parents must be involved,” she said. “What is missing is a robust mechanism to ensure that schools really do engage with parents. Parents are the primary educators of their children, they are natural sex educators of their children and they are the experts on their own children.”

In a statement the Catholic Education Service, which acts on behalf of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, said: “Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) is essential for young people to learn about the nature of marriage, family life and relationships, taught in an age-appropriate way. In Catholic schools RSE must be taught in the context of Church teaching and with the full consultation and involvement of parents.”

The CES submitted written evidence to the Education Select Committee inquiry on PSHE and SRE and representatives were called to give oral evidence.

In its statement the CES said: “We welcome the Committee’s support for the role of parents in RSE. This is shown in their recommendations that all schools should be required to run a regular consultation with parents on the school’s RSE provision and that the parental right to withdraw their child from elements of RSE should be retained.”

The CES added that schools should be able to decide which resources are appropriate.

Sarah Carter, a trustee of the Family Education Trust and the trust’s nominated spokeswoman at the Education Committee’s evidence session, said: “There have been serious concerns raised over the appropriateness of the resources for teaching SRE that are being endorsed by the Education Committee’s recommendation.

“The Committee’s report supports the right of parents to be consulted and to withdraw their child from ‘elements’ of SRE. However, actively promoting classroom resources published by Brook, Sex Education Forum and PSHE Association to schools and governors will undermine the wishes of the parents in favour of so-called experts.

“Most of the components of PSHE are the primary responsibility of parents and by placing the subject on a statutory footing there would be a very real danger that parents would consider themselves less responsible for these aspects of their child’s physical, emotional and social development.

Catholic former headmaster Eric Hester questioned the need for government interference.

He said: “I was for 24 years a headmaster of schools – comprehensive and independent grammar. In addition, I led the inspection of over 50 independent schools and wrote the reports. Why are the independent schools so good on this matter as on everything else? The reason is obvious: the independent schools are not controlled by the politicians but by the parents.

“If parents do not like the sex education in an independent school they can withdraw their children, not just from sex classes, but from the school: they can take their children elsewhere. If parents in the state sector had the same choice of school, then education would improve at once.”

Source: Catholic Herald