Israel - Christian Zionism

The term 'Christian Zionist' has cropped up a great deal and having attempted to define what zionism is, I assume it would be useful to define this also.

There are groups, such as the International Christian Embassy (Jerusalem), Christians United for Israel, Bridges for Peace and others who are actively calling themselves 'Christian Zionists' (CZ). All function from Christian (protestant) fundamentalist beliefs that see modern Israel as the fulfilling of biblical prophecy. It appears wrong to label CZ group as evangelical in the generally accepted sense and more correct to label those who support CZ as being 'fundamentalists' of the generally excessive (or as I'd see it, a condemnation of) Christian belief type. By this I mean the book-burning, closed-minded, closed-theological understanding, point-making rather than dialogue Christians who do the mainstream Christian so much damage.

A hallmark of the CZ group appears to be the unquestioningly literal application of all before them. They appear to be hung up on matters eschatalogical and are taken up with Israel as the focus for the parousia, the tribulation, antichrist and the final battle. It draws greatly on Darby and others premillennial dispensational thinking (AKA Dispensational premillennialism, DP). Within DP there are three distinct epochs:

1. Before Pentecost: Creation - Fall - Noah - Babel - Abraham - Moses - Jesus

2. Pentecost: Age of the Spirit - Christ's return (Rapture)

3. Millenium:

The hallmark of PMD is the literal interpretation of texts and the alignment (often quite creatively) between prophecy and happening in our own time and a fixation with period threwe - Millenium.

Once a broader group, it has now been fined into a 'conservate' Christian grouping, the home of the 'fundamentalist 'Evangelical' Christian and a hot bed of reactionary thinking against the negatives and evils of our modern society. Oddly though, as antagonistic as this group is to the goings on in our society they are supportive and willing to ignore the same within the nation state of Israel!

If I had to start working out where the Christian Zionist (CZ) move started amongst those I know
I would have to point to the 1970's with Hal Lindsey' s 'Late Great Planet Earth' and the film 'Thief in the Night) and the many books (I have many on my shelf which have provided me with my own position before this foray and have given me insights) of Colin Chapman, Ken Burnett and many others. I also have a number of people who find in the 'Left behind' series of books and films a resurgence of CZ impetus.

What we have before us is, thanks to CZ, a system that sees unconditional and eternal promises regarding the nation and people of Israel. It doesn't matter if the people believe, it's all about God being consistent (which ironically I see as therefore being ALL about how Israel believes and acts) and all about Israel being the focus, and steward, of God's grace to the world (through the blessing and promise to Abram).

Additionally, we also now have The Church - A good position to have else we'd all need to become Messianic Jews (as some have done in their quest to be sure!).

God put off his dealing with His people, Israel, to embrace and save those who are Church because Israel rejected the offer He was.

Now, Jesus will come and take the Church, who are almost a distraction from Israel and the main focus,, and will restore the final bits of israel and bring on the millennial stuff and the end will happen and 'game over' man - eternit with Him!

So here we are, stuck with a bunch of people who see prophetic signs and will do whatever it takes to support the Israel described above. They struggle to set the condition for God and support, without question, Israel for the reasons given above. They have the state of Israel (which they see a threatened and in danger of eradication from 'the dogs') and now yearn for the temple and I guess hope for the antichrist to come too as they march towards Armageddon and the end of all things.

A hallmark text for the CZ has to be Gen 12:3 and their belief that Judgement will come to those nations and individuals on the basis of how they 'bless Israel'. The problem comes in the shape of a question. "Is pointing out error not blessing Israel?" (Watchmen role from Ezekiel?) Is pointing out the failings of the covenants, promises and the hallmarks of YHWH not seeking to bless - after all, it the the fatherless who remain uncorrected. Correction is surely 'blessing' and not the curse that any comment is taken to be (with the all to readily issued 'anti-Semite' label attached )?

Seems that CZ are less likely to be found within wider theologically and ecclesiologically aware groups of believers, this is probably the reason that so many of them buy into the whole CZ thing i.e. they aren't always the brightest biblical believing bunch (now that's going to upset some - sorry!).

They are wonderfully protective of Israel and terribly condemning of the palestinians and all other 'enemies' of israel, including, or perhaps especially, of course Islam.

What is especially sad is the way that those who embrace CZ and those who oppose (or even question) it are immediately demonised by the other side and the levels of ad hominemn and vitriolic wickedness takes being awful to new heights (should that be lows?).

So here's the next installment - read so many papers that my head is spinning, but I can see the next step in this journey.

Apologies if I have clouded the issue and for anyone I might have offended in this honest attempt to understand where, what and how I should relate to israel.

Pax

EDIT MADE 13:02 18/04/2011 - poor editing on my part dealt with (Thanks Simmy)

Israel - Victim of their own victimisation?

In reading about PTSD and the effects of conflict I chanced across an interesting paper (which typically I can't lay my hands on). This paper spoke of the effects of war in socialising those engaged in, surrounded by, or being victims of atrocities. Those affected by it, in some way, become dehumanised and, ironically, behave in the same way as those with whom they contended or (in the case of victims) were abused by.

I first came across this on a first-hand basis when talking to a veteran of the Far East conflict who spoke of the difficulty he found in trying to live 'normally' after the war because the "boundaries has all been moved or even removed."

Watching the final episode of 'The promise' and seeing Israelis move from house to house in the Arab village (9th April 1948) I was stunned by the parallels between that place and many other places where those doing the shooting were Nazis. I saw no difference between this and see none even still in the goings on of today's Israel.

The comment that the army weren't present in the settlements to keep the peace, merely to protect the Jews and that killing, beatings and abuse would draw no attention other than perhaps support for the acts brought me back to the ghettos and the acts within them.

The labelling of the arabs and the dehumanising and parallels with the Jews of 1938 onwards displayed the same dehumanising, gratuitous, senseless, and repeated, acts of atrocity and violence of the 1930's and beyond. The abuse of those who are rendered powerless, homeless and voiceless (other than through the mortars and 'terrorist acts of some' is no different at all from the Nazis.

And so I ask myself, are the Jewish perhaps a dehumanised victim of that which the Jews suffered during the shoah? Is Israel, the nation state, so far from God because it is a nation that has lost its soul to bitterness and wickedness as a response to its modern past?

The terrorist acts that saw many die in the early stages of modern israel's history (including of course the King David Hotel in 1946) were done by the same people who saw power in the government of Israel. Were they terrorists or 'freedom fighters'? Are those who have lost their homeland of Palestine terrorists or freedom fighters now in exactly the same way?

Questions, questions and more questions!

Lies, misrepresentations and deliberate spinning of the truth make this an even more difficult subject as each layer is peeled away. Could this explain how, and why, the nation state is so far from the God who promised the land they occupy and His commandments and a relationship with Him?

Israel dehumanised victims or inhuman territorialists?

You tell me!

Pax

Israel - 'The Promise'

I was advised to take a look as Peter Kosminsky's 'The Promise' and I managed to watch a few episodes to find that the same forces that drive me each year to commemorate the shoah were slowly aroused to find me despair in exactly the same way with the Jews and the way the Nazis engaged with the Jews then, and the ways the Jews engage now.

As I read and dialogue, I find that Israel has nothing to do with the day-to-day realities of the majority and yet it is a place, an issue, which sees great polarisation. All is condoned or condemned. Israel is poor little country on the brink of extinction, fight for her life every day or she is a territory grabbing, murdering, American-aided demon.

I find little or no balance regarding the issue (something that was admirably demonstrated by the responses I had from some when I supported an 'Israel and the Church') and even less intelligent dialogue. So I am going to have to work from scratch, it seems.

An observation from the frustration that the journey has been thus far has to be that surely those who see their support of the state of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple and the many other things that they drone on about as being necessary for 'The Return' all seem to forget one thing. If God is God then He doesn't need us to manufacture the condition for 'The Return', He is surely bid enough and powerful enough to do what is required Himself. It is immature, naive, outrageous even to assume that we can engineer the conditions so that, Genie-like, He will appear at our command 'out of the bottle'.

Any sympathy, any 'blood guilt' over the shoah, is slowly fading as the generation that witnessed the second world war, that perhaps saw the liberation of the camps (I know of three who were there and am trying to get them to share their experiences). The new anger, the new awareness of the slaughter of innocents is not about the Jews, but from them and they are losing ground in the eyes of many because of it.

I get the feeling that somewhere underneath it all, there is a parallel in a car I hired when working for a firm in Newark, NJ. It said 'Mustang' on the paperwork, it said 'Mustang' on the tail (and the steering wheel) but it wasn't and it was soon relabelled 'Ford Probe'. Is this the case here - are people reading the label 'Israel' and setting about bring God back on their terms and timing? Are people looking at the physical location and confusing it with a spiritual entity? Are 'all believer; now the 'New Israel' (as put forward by one person I am in dialogue with) and are we looking at double revelation or was the return to the 'Promised Land' something that took place long before Palestine was partitioned?

If I were Palestinian and saw my land taken from me, the homes of my forebears snatched by force and found myself excluded, pushed further away and acted against, would I maintain my intellectual and moral veneers or would I be firing rockets too?

Being acted against, however badly, does not provide warrant to act badly against others and so the case for supporting Israel slowly wanes if that's the excuse. The shoah has passed and all must learn from the wickedness that is was, and still is in the genocide to be found even today, and seek to make true the words 'never again'

Pax

Zionism - What is it?

In order to have a sensible dialogue we need to make sure that we all have the same understanding of the terms used. So let's make sure we are all meaning the same things when we use the same words.

From the many mails I have received, I have come to the baseline definition that Zionism is:

+ 'The belief in a Jewish homeland for THE Jewish people, in the geographic location that is Israel',

+ 'The possession the the human right of self determination, for the Jewish people' and

+ Concerned with the nation state of Israel, a modern secular nation where Judaism is to be found, but where nation and religious belief are separate.

+ It is about the return of the territory to the people who once occupied it as a God-given right.

I was also told that the label 'antisemitism' * applies to:

+ Those who oppose Jewish human rights,

+ Those who oppose the existance of a homeland for the Jewish people, and

+ Those who support and/or spread hate about Israel

(* Apparently this is the European Union's definition of antisemitism.)

I am taking myself off to watch 'The Promise' (and visit the gadget Show Live) and as I do, I wonder if there are any additions, modifications or subtractions that need to be made to the elements above to ensure that we have an agreed datum from which to work.

As it stands, I don't think I'm a zionist and I'm definitely not antisemitic (unless being critical of the nation's behaviour is to be considered antisemitic).

Thank you for those who have offered their views on zionism and antisemitism, the elements of which have been reduced to the lowest common denominator here.

So, are the definitions right?

If not, tell me where and why and we can move on.

Pax

ps. Thought I'd posted this before I left for Gadget Show (excellent) - apologies.

Something Rotten with the State of Israel?

I am going to try to get to grips with a subject that tests and vexes a great many people. The horribly difficult issue of Israel. My postbag has attracted some quite judgemental and cruel comments regarding this issue and, sadly, nothing of any substance or reason (biblically or otherwise).

I have to be honest, this is an area I struggle with at a number of levels and for a number of reasons and am more than happy to be 'informed' of errors (nicely please) but don't fancy the prospect of more of the 'you are cursed because you oppose God's people' stuff!

Today
As I see it, the issue of Israel is coloured, and even hampered, by the modern nation state (a secular place) and the overly indulgent attitudes of Zionists. The spiritual people of God, the heirs of the promises and those who bear God's name don't appear to be the same people as the modern secular Jew. Just because it's called Israel doesn't mean that God sees the same label. Some will scream about Israel being merely about 'possessing the land' and tell me it's all about territory.

When I was younger, I used to assume Israel was a land full of God-fearing Jews, but the more I became engaged with it, the more I realised that the conflict between secular and 'religious' Jews was engaged and that it was becoming an increasingly secular nation. An assumption that is perhaps supported by the fact that Israel's Proclamation of Independence doesn't even mention God (although there is a passing nod to the ‘Rock of Israel’).

Israel ‘will be based on the principles of liberty, justice and peace as conceived by the Prophets of Israel; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of religion, race, or sex; will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, education and culture; will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and will loyally uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter’.

Excellent - but of course the words ring a little hollow when we think of many of the realities (outside of Palestine and Mordecai Vanunu), but that's true of all nation states I reckon. But there are requirements from God that need to be maintained, and of course they ain't. Still, this could just make them a sinful and fallen nation couldn't it?

Modern Israel is about Jewish nationalism, not the Jewish faith and not about the spiritual nation of Israel, heir of the promise. The conflicts between the various Jewish interests, ultra-orthodox, orthodox, middle of the road, reform, liberal and the like all add to the mix, and to the conflict. Then there are groups like the Haredi who feel the nation state is a denial of God's promise to Israel because it's linked with obeying commandments, which secualr Israel not only isn't, but appears to break with impunity.

Influences outside of Israel don't help. The support of America and the whole spectrum of Zionists offering support for as biblical people, condoning the nation's action and raising funds to rebuild the temple all complicate an already complicated political and national picture and supports what, unkindly, some have described as a self-serving, Godless, ghetto mentality.

And then we have the American fundamentalists (like Phelps, Jones and Sapp perhaps) who offer unconditional support as well.

See my difficulty (and we haven't even started yet!)?

Pax

ps. And then there's God's people!

Christians! Who needs enemies?

The main focus of attention this week has been the fact that Christians have no need of enemies or people seeking to pull them down when they have enough people willing to do that from within.

If I had a pound for every mention I have had from people about the end of the world happening in May I'd have enough money for a case of Jaffa Cakes (no need to shoplift like the TV 'Rev'). "Ho, Ho, Vicar," They cry, "It's bad enough that your Jesus geezer isn't ever coming back without you having people making things worse by announcing his appearing! Won't come then, won't come ever - a permanent 'no show' your bloke and the prophesies fron nutters will only make more people see that!"

The sad thing is that I can see that they are right about that.

That said, He will come back (at a time no one will predict) and those who sneer, the naysayers and mockers will be wondering what has hits them (and worse still, what will be coming to hit them). Just like the Jehovah's Witnesses and their abortive expected due date, of which there have been sixteen thus far (if I have counted correctly) we're going to look like a bunch of lunatics and sad types if the 'prophets' keep it up!

Moving on. Those amazingly sad types who have prophesied that Japan was God's vengeance because of [insert blinking ridiculous reason here] bring the whole of Christendom into disrepute and also demonstrate that they have no understanding of who God is, or how He acts. To criticise a blatantly flawed, secular nation, because of their wrong actions is not to raise a hand against the Lord's anointed but is to uphold what God calls us to be and to do! To condone evil because of a name is to (once again) subject YHWH and His Son and the Holy Spirit to ridicule.

Staggering forward, we come to those who seek to bleat about the world not being Christian and, as proof of this, look for ways in which we can challenge the ungodly. The problem is that whilst the identification of things contrary to God might be right the manner in which they engage damages the argument and weakens our position as Christians even further. Acting in ways that deny God is something we are called no to do, but why let that stop a good campaign?

So, seems that those opposed to us need do nothing but let those outlined above keep on doing the work for them - after all, they're doing such a good job without any help from those who wish to see us ridiculed, mocked, marginalised and render ineffective.

To indulgine in a modification of the words of St Thumper of Bambi:

"If you can't say anything sensible (and biblical), keep your mouth closed!"

HS2 - Should the Church be involved?

Moving on from the London march today I am prompted to continue on a different vein. Office said (Harriet Monsell) and desk looking clear (it's all on the floor!), fresh tea on desk and a collection of tits, sparrows and dunnocks hanging from the feeders I am drawn to a letter which tells me that, "Churches and Christians have no place in protesting."

The focus of the protest to which the letter relates is that of 'HS2' (High Speed Two), a rail service which will provide a second high speed link from London to Scotland and one which threatens to cuts communities and houses in two.

* Leaders of industry in the region are saying that the cutting down of the journey to London by forty minutes will bring investment and business to the area.

* Ecologists and nature lovers tell us that the trains increase the carbon economy figures rather than reduce it as the trains consume three times the power of the slower existing stock.

* People can work in London and will be effectively working on the trains whilst they travel and so this is a win-win (unless you count the cost of those commuting into London leaving local workforces).

* Air travel from London to Scotland will be cut, reducing the carbon economy.

These are but a few of the issues and the question is, should the churches be getting involved in this issue. As chairman of the local churches together group I have asked this and the jury is out with many of the leaders. "we shouldn't be getting into stuff like this, it's not our business!" said one minister.

well I think they are wrong, for we are called to serve and support the communities in which we find ourselves, and this is a need which needs to be addressed.

Where I am I am finding ministers who have the attitude that we shouldn't engage in areas where there is difference of opinion and should avoid confrontational issues such as Palestine, Abortion, Homosexuality and the like. The problem with this is that if the minister's are so unsure of what they believe (or too cowardly to dialogue) how can we expect those to whom we minister to have any integrity, rational thought processes and ability to dialogue and debate.

1 Peter 3 tells us that we should be able to answer any who ask, telling them of the hope we have in Jesus.

Now if the ministers cannot do this, then what hope is there for the members?

Anyone fancy coming to a public meeting - details soon?

I love this blog, enables me to dialogue with the voices inside my head, the people outside it and the God who is everywhere.

Pax