These people are confused
A story in today's Washington Post is quite a tale. The explain-this-story-in-ten-words-or-less version is: Israel stole Palestinian land; no peace until they give it back. OK, 11 words. The clear intent of this group of "evangelicals" (more on those quote marks soon) is to put some space between themselves and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, while still attempting to portray themselves as somehow paragons of Christian orthodoxy. Hence the prominence afforded to the term "evangelicals."
It is not my place to deny them the mantle of evangelistas. It is my place to blow the whistle on anti-Zionism dressed up in evangelical clothing. It's otherwise hard to know what else to call this missive, which otherwise could have been penned by the usual suspects among leftwing church people (Episcopalians, Pax Christi types, Mennonites, etc.), i.e. by people who normally are not considered as evangelical by their more conservative Christian brethren.
One Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, is quoted, presumably on behalf of the "true" evangelicals (unlike those pesky Southern Baptists) with this:
"...[A]nd if you're motivated by a desire to please the evangelical community, you've got to know that some of us are not pleased by the heavy-handed favoring of the Israeli side in all of this."
The "heavy-handed favoring" is what the current administration is allegedly doing. Ah, moral relativism rises again, this time in the most unexpected soil of the "evangelical" camp. Could it be that the administration favors Israel, not to please a core constituency, but because it is the right thing to do?
OK, time for some harder truths:
1. The term "evangelical" usually includes the assumption, made by the Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, and other evangelical churches, that the Bible, including the Old Testament, is the literal and unalterable word of God. This is certainly the case for the large Southern Baptist Convention, whose creed reads in part that the Bible "has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter."
2. If one subscribes to this creed, then one must find that the Old Testament is rather specific as to who should own the land now occupied by Palestinians, once known as Judea and Samaria, now as the West Bank. Yes, the land is "occupied" by people to whom it was not promised -- and, with reference to scripture, the occupiers are the Palestinians.
3. An example of that word of God, direct from God to Moses, in Numbers 33:53-55 (KJV):
"And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it. And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit. But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell".
Now, I don't personally think this was the "literal word of God" to Israel, but I make no claim to being evangelical. My point is that if one chooses to use one's religion as a sally port to render geopolitical opinions, then the source of those opinions must stand scrutiny with regards its claimed basis -- that of evangelical Christians. The simple truth is that these "evangelicals" are, in fact, quite different than those normally afforded this label in our country.
From where I sit, history before 1947 (the partition giving the Jews their first modern state) shows that Jews have lived in and around Jerusalem for going on 3,000 years. The people called Palestinians have also been in the land, although their tenure as a unified people can be traced for far fewer years (today's Palestinians are basically a mixture of Arabs, Bedouins, and Turks who for the most part settled in Palestine during the late Ottoman period, which ended in 1918).
Since 1947, it is the Palestinians, among other Arab neighbors, who have attempted to kill all Jews who had the temerity to live in the modern state of Israel. When Israel won back some of its ancient portion in 1967, this somehow became an "occupation". Evangelicals, read your Bibles more carefully.
It is, of course, possible to see virtue in the Palestinian claim to a state. They had one offered in 2000; turned it down flat even though it was better than anything they could have even dreamed about pre-Oslo. Now, somehow, it is Israel's fault that the Palestinians lack adult supervision. Hard cheese, boyos. Give the boot to Yasser and his thugs, let your smart folks (we know you have them) begin talking and acting like human beings, rid yourselves of Hamas and Islamic Jihadis, and stop the intentional targeting of civilians.
To conclude, to tilt "heavily" towards Israel, regardless of our domestic politics or place on the evangelical spectrum, is a moral necessity for those with a Western, post-Enlightenment worldview. What seems to really offend these liberal Christians is that the Republicans, supported by conservative evangelicals, are now in charge.
A story in today's Washington Post is quite a tale. The explain-this-story-in-ten-words-or-less version is: Israel stole Palestinian land; no peace until they give it back. OK, 11 words. The clear intent of this group of "evangelicals" (more on those quote marks soon) is to put some space between themselves and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, while still attempting to portray themselves as somehow paragons of Christian orthodoxy. Hence the prominence afforded to the term "evangelicals."
It is not my place to deny them the mantle of evangelistas. It is my place to blow the whistle on anti-Zionism dressed up in evangelical clothing. It's otherwise hard to know what else to call this missive, which otherwise could have been penned by the usual suspects among leftwing church people (Episcopalians, Pax Christi types, Mennonites, etc.), i.e. by people who normally are not considered as evangelical by their more conservative Christian brethren.
One Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, is quoted, presumably on behalf of the "true" evangelicals (unlike those pesky Southern Baptists) with this:
"...[A]nd if you're motivated by a desire to please the evangelical community, you've got to know that some of us are not pleased by the heavy-handed favoring of the Israeli side in all of this."
The "heavy-handed favoring" is what the current administration is allegedly doing. Ah, moral relativism rises again, this time in the most unexpected soil of the "evangelical" camp. Could it be that the administration favors Israel, not to please a core constituency, but because it is the right thing to do?
OK, time for some harder truths:
1. The term "evangelical" usually includes the assumption, made by the Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, and other evangelical churches, that the Bible, including the Old Testament, is the literal and unalterable word of God. This is certainly the case for the large Southern Baptist Convention, whose creed reads in part that the Bible "has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter."
2. If one subscribes to this creed, then one must find that the Old Testament is rather specific as to who should own the land now occupied by Palestinians, once known as Judea and Samaria, now as the West Bank. Yes, the land is "occupied" by people to whom it was not promised -- and, with reference to scripture, the occupiers are the Palestinians.
3. An example of that word of God, direct from God to Moses, in Numbers 33:53-55 (KJV):
"And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it. And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit. But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell".
Now, I don't personally think this was the "literal word of God" to Israel, but I make no claim to being evangelical. My point is that if one chooses to use one's religion as a sally port to render geopolitical opinions, then the source of those opinions must stand scrutiny with regards its claimed basis -- that of evangelical Christians. The simple truth is that these "evangelicals" are, in fact, quite different than those normally afforded this label in our country.
From where I sit, history before 1947 (the partition giving the Jews their first modern state) shows that Jews have lived in and around Jerusalem for going on 3,000 years. The people called Palestinians have also been in the land, although their tenure as a unified people can be traced for far fewer years (today's Palestinians are basically a mixture of Arabs, Bedouins, and Turks who for the most part settled in Palestine during the late Ottoman period, which ended in 1918).
Since 1947, it is the Palestinians, among other Arab neighbors, who have attempted to kill all Jews who had the temerity to live in the modern state of Israel. When Israel won back some of its ancient portion in 1967, this somehow became an "occupation". Evangelicals, read your Bibles more carefully.
It is, of course, possible to see virtue in the Palestinian claim to a state. They had one offered in 2000; turned it down flat even though it was better than anything they could have even dreamed about pre-Oslo. Now, somehow, it is Israel's fault that the Palestinians lack adult supervision. Hard cheese, boyos. Give the boot to Yasser and his thugs, let your smart folks (we know you have them) begin talking and acting like human beings, rid yourselves of Hamas and Islamic Jihadis, and stop the intentional targeting of civilians.
To conclude, to tilt "heavily" towards Israel, regardless of our domestic politics or place on the evangelical spectrum, is a moral necessity for those with a Western, post-Enlightenment worldview. What seems to really offend these liberal Christians is that the Republicans, supported by conservative evangelicals, are now in charge.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home