The Things Liberals Boycott

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is urging denominational divestment from a number of US companies because, as the Prebyterians assert, they are helping Israel in the occupation of Palestinian territory. The New York Times story linked above notes that only one company was targeted for divestment on the Palestinian side of the struggle due to their alleged funneling of money to families of suicide bombers. What is the rationale behind this move? Is the rationale theological? Minimally. Some within the Presbyterian Church of American (a somewhat more conservative branch of Presbyterians), issues an open letter through Knox Theological Seminary some time ago, urging Christians not to support Israel based on their eschatological stance. Based on their Covenant Theological grid of viewing the world and the Scriptures, they assert that the current secular nation of Israel has no biblical right to the land (the church has replaced a political Israel) and therefore should not be supported by evangelicals. No doubt this Covenant kind of theology is a foundational aspect for the more liberal brand of Presbyterians in the PCUSA. I agree that the current secular state of Israel is not the one mentioned by the prophets as those who should inherit the land, but not because of a skewed view that the Church has somehow spiritualized all of the Old Testament promises to Israel. Jeremiah 31:31-34 suggests that Israel and Judah will inherit the land when their heart is changed and the nation once again obeys the Lord. However, the PC USA no doubt is more influenced by their social liberal leanings, of which the NY Times report draws attention. Rather than enter a debate on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, I find it interesting as to what it is that will draw the ire of liberal professing Christians. Southern Baptists were mocked by the press and other religious groups for their boycott of Disney and Disney's open support of the homosexual movement. While I do not stand with the co-belligerence movement among many evangelicals (see Steve Camp's articles on evangelical co-belligerence), they at least are motivated to address issues with more moral and some biblical foundations. Is it the church's responsibility to use financial clout to bring about political pressure and force political policies? When you abandon the spread of the evangel, what else is left to do? When you no longer accept the Bible as an authoritative source for the church's emphasis and directives in ministry, how else is a socially liberal leaning denomination to spend their time and money? When the denominational headquarters is removed from local church control (be wary fellow Southern Baptists), what else should we expect from politically minded denominational executives? When the emphasis of our cause has become nothing more than social justices to the exclusion of the preaching of the cross for the salvation of the lost, we should not be surprised when churches become purely political. Evangelicals in America are headed in a similar direction. Theology is becoming less and less important. The Bible is becoming more and more plagued with evangelical doubt and disinterest. So, we pursue conservative political issues. Now the liberals, who have adopted a more stringent rejection of Scripture's authenticity and authority, are pursuing their more liberal political positions. Are the evangelical churches in America headed toward a similar state of ministry emphasis. From my vantage point the slide has begun.