Stephen Sizer Contra Melanie PhilipsWritten by Jacob Prasch
by Jacob Prasch
Moriel salutes Melanie Philips excellent article on the shameful spectacle of Stephen Sizer in the Spectator in the UK.
We additionally agree that articles citing Sizer's anti-Zionist and anti-Christian Zionist propaganda republished in radical Islamic publications are contributing to the incitement of Moslem attacks on churches in the UK are excellently written.
Sizer, routinely sharing platforms with apologists for Irish Republican and Islamic terror, holocaust deniers, and conspiracy theorists, speaks for itself. His backing down on the televised debate with myself (Jacob Prasch) speaks for itself. His visit to terrorist Iran - a nation that has murdered 80% of its Evangelical pastors speaks for itself. His biased revisionism and misrepresentation of Israel as apartheid speaks for itself as Israel is the one nation in the Middle East protecting the human rights and religious freedom of Arab Christians - especially Evangelicals. Sizer's hypocritical willingness to align himself with Moslems and non-Evangelicals but ignore pro-Zionist Arab Christians such as Kamal Kaleem, Yusef Farra and others speaks for itself. But now he stands publicly accused by some sources (none published by Moriel) of having his articles against Christian Zionists used to help incite attacks on churches in the UK in the same manner radical Moslems attack churches in Islamic countries.
We again applaud The Spectator and Melanie Philips and the Christian articles exposing Sizer.
We consider libellous, however, Sizer's citation of my article on our American website as a veiled threat and a matter for the police. I have never met Sizer and never threatened him. As anyone reading "The Sons of Menlaus" article can observe for themselves, while he may indeed invoke divine retribution on himself, I have never threatened Stephen Sizer in any way. This is a defamatory, slanderous assertion and only the command of 1 Corinthians 6 prevents me from the pursuit of litigation. If he did not profess to be a Christian (we do not actually know if he is or is not) I would certainly sue for damages.
As much as we admire Melanie Philips and appreciate The Spectator article however, there is one one point where we would disagree with their perspective. Desmond Tutu wishes to ordain lesbian priestesses into the Anglican communion; John Stott teaches annihilationism; Colin Chapman teaches that we cannot say those who are non-regenerate followers of Jesus (including Moslems and Hindus) will not be saved. They are entitled to their beliefs, but such beliefs are antithetical to biblical Evangelicalism. Stephen Sizer and his anti-Zionist Anglican theocrat friends are simply not biblically Evangelical. They have all fundamentally departed from long held tenets of biblical Christianity. Those who are biblically Evangelical largely do not appreciate these sad figures (not infrequently regarded as apostates) being identified with us.
Latest from Jacob Prasch
Leave a comment
Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.