Has John Bercow proven himself unfit to be Speaker of the House of Commons?
In blocking Donald Trump from addressing MPs and Peers in Westminster Hall in Parliament, he has become an embarrassment to free speech and democracy.
It is my sincere prayer that MPs will succeed in forcing him out.
I admit to being a Zionist and a Conservative. Some of my best friends call me a "Netanyahu groupie". Yet I do have some liberal credentials. This week I've been under attack on a private email list for conservative Christians for describing Donald Trump as "supremely flawed". There was no objection to "flawed", just that he might be "supremely" so.
Of course he is. We all are, though perhaps some, such as myself, more than others. We don't have to be Speaker to understand that.
But he is the man that the United States chose for its president.
Even though no invitation has been issued for him to do so, I believe strongly that Donald Trump should not be prohibited from speaking at Westminster during his state visit. Indeed, he should be warmly invited to do so.
Bercow, whose appointment is a non-political one, explained that he would refuse to invite Trump out of solidarity with opponents of racism and sexism. He said such an invitation is not a right but an "earned honour".
It would be interesting to know how exactly he thinks Chinese President Xi Jinping and the Emir of Kuwait earned this honour.
As Nadhim Zahawi, a Conservative MP born in Iraq, who has previously been critical of the Trump travel ban, said on BBC Radio 4 Today: "I think it is, in my book, unwise and he opens himself up to the accusation of hypocrisy."
In 1 Samuel 8, the Israelites ask for a king and the Samuel warns them of the consequences.
He will be a tyrant, Samuel says, taking whatever he wants and living high on the hog at their expense. They don't listen, preferring to be "like all the other nations". This displeases Samuel, so he prays.
God told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights."
Samuel warned them of the many perils of a King - taking their male and female servants for his own use being just one.
But the people refused to listen. "No!" they said. "We want a King over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a King to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
So God decided he'd better call Saul.
Which turned out to be something of a mixed blessing for the people, even if it did result eventually in the extraordinary kingship of David.
Authority in the Old Testament comes with a health warning – and in contrast to the traditions of the surrounding nations, it's limited by law. King Ahab can't just take Naboth's vineyard because he feels like it (1 Kings 21); he is under God's eyes and subject to his rules.
Alongside the respect paid to authority in the Bible is an awareness of the need to control it.
Elected leaders such as Donald Trump – and Kings – can be rebuked if they step over the line, as we are seeing in the court battle over the travel ban.
In Britain, a model of working democracy, where Brexit means Brexit and "elected president" must be allowed to mean "elected president", we need have no fear of allowing Donald Trump to speak. We need better to uphold our tradition of freedom of speech and let him have his say, on a platform far more significant than Twitter, so that the people can hear, then judge him as he deserves – for better, or for worse.
