Posted on 09/04/2006 7:31:31 PM PDT by Esther Ruth
Sep. 5, 2006 0:51 | Updated Sep. 5, 2006 2:13
Christian Zionists Angry Over Slur
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS
The leaders of three Jerusalem-based Christian Evangelical organizations on Monday voiced distress over a recent proclamation by the Latin Patriarch and the heads of three other churches in Jerusalem issuing a stinging and virtually unprecedented public criticism of Christian Zionism and their unflinching support for the State of Israel.
The bitter inter-Christian tiff followed an August 22 "Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism" signed by the outgoing Latin Patriarch Michel Sabbah, Archbishop Swerios Malki Mourad of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal of the Episcopal Church and Bishop Munib Younan of the Lutheran Church, was indicative of the deep discord and resentment within the Christian Church over the Evangelicals' support for Israel.
The declaration lambasted Christian Zionism as a "false teaching" that "condemn[s] the world to the doom of Armageddon."
"It is with concern that we note the negative opinions about Christian Zionism voiced by certain church clerics in Jerusalem... using inflammatory language they have expressed views that are far from the truth," read a joint response by the heads of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, Bridges for Peace and Christian Friends of Israel.
"We find the paper unbalanced and notably one-sided. It totally ignores the jihadist goals of the Hamas Government and turns a blind eye to terrorism perpetrated by this regime," the statement read.
The unusually-harsh statement by the Latin Patriarch, who is a Palestinian, comes at a time of burgeoning ties between Israel and the Christian Evangelical community around the world.
"Christian Zionism is a modern theological and political movement that embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism, thereby becoming detrimental to a just peace within Palestine and Israel," the Jerusalem declaration claimed, calling Christian Zionism "a false doctrine that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation."
"A Christian Zionist believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and rejects replacement theology which played a pivotal role in the persecution of Jews through the centuries and under-girded the Holocaust," the Evangelical leaders wrote in their six-point response. "Christian Zionism is not heretical; in fact, Christians from all traditional backgrounds have held such a view for two thousand years.
"We pray for peace but we note with sadness that the present Palestinian government is totally dedicated to the destruction of Israel."
The assault on Christian Zionism, which also included an attack on their alliance with Israeli groups, were the clearest signs to date that the ever-growing friendship between the two sides is increasingly worrying to non-Evangelical Christian groups.
"We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organizations with elements in the governments of Israel and the US that are presently imposing preemptive borders and domination over Palestine," the proclamation reads, in what appears to be a indirect reference to the Knesset's increasingly-influential "Christian Allies Caucus," the cross-party parliamentary lobby that works with Christian supporters of Israel around the world.
The acerbic and open attack on Christian Zionists also served as an indication of the immense chasm that exists between the various Church leaders living in Jerusalem.
The three Christian Evangelical leaders who wrote the response, Malcolm Hedding, Rebecca Brimmer and Ray Sanders, noted that there has been no dialogue whatsoever between the Jerusalem clerics and themselves, calling such meetings a "Biblical prerequisite."
"We feel that we have been treated with disrespect and disdain, and attacked by the issuing of this public declaration," they wrote. "They present themselves as lovers of justice, mercy, truth and peace. This public attack seems lacking in those qualities."
This has already been posted before. Are you trying to stir things up again?
You have a problem with "stirring things up?"
I hate that phrase 'Christian Zionism'. Its a tag with a negative connotation. Suffice it to say the most Christians support the existence and flourishing of a viable Israel- not to agree blindly to all her policies and actions but stand with her for it's future survival.
Thank you for posting this. I hadn't noticed it before. Of course, many of us do not spend 24/7 here.
When it comes to this issue, one thread is enough.
I hadn't seen it before, either.
It's so much easier to hate a group of people, even when you know they've been persecuted for eons, when your chosen church denomination gives you permission isn't it? And yes, I think that's what it's about, with a cover story of chastising fundamentalist Christians. What a crock. But not surprising considering the "progressive" attitudes of the churches involved.
I couldn't find it. Can you show us the link?
I was slightly off. It was a similar thread. The link is above.
When it comes to this issue, the more threads the better. The Church better WAKE UP!!!
We are at the time when God's plan, started in Genesis and finishing in Revelation is about to take place. All the news that comes forth is important to the watchmen on the wall.
I just hate the strife it causes. Christians should be fighting their common enemies.
That is so true, it's time to choose sides, pick teams, shirts vs skins. These revisionists from the Episcopal and Lutheran groups are just trying to straddle the fence. You know what? Anyone straddling the fence is going to get shot from both sides. Best pick your foxhole and make some friends there.
I must have missed your promotion. Congrats! ;)
Promotion? LOL! ;-)
I'm not a Christian or a Jew. All I know is the Israelis are decent people and their enemies are filth. What more is needed to take sides?
This regional conflict is the cornerstone of every Islamic flare-up worldwide. There have been Oslo, the road map, and countless other formulae for dividing and mitigating Israel/Palestine over the years, but when you get right down to it, there are only two clear, definable positions that are mutually incompatible.
Either G-d promised all of the land of Israel to the Jews, or the Jews are abominable occupiers of the Islamic state of Palestine. The "two-state solution" is tenuous at best. There simply isn't enough land to carve it up into prophet and non-prophet areas. The Arabs and Persians are oblivious to the fact that over 99% of the surrounding lands are Islamic paradises, so why lament the minutiae of a tiny slice of real estate doled out to the Jews? And why not just rescue the "Palestinians" with their stupendous oil money and absorb the "refugees" into other Arab societies? The answer is, of course, that the Arabs don't want to rescue the Palestinians nor improve their lot; tis better to have them as poor refugees so Arab governments can rail against the "occupiers". And the very idea of the Jewish state is a thorn in the side of the Islamic caliphate. I have always held the position that Israel was promised to the Jews; not by the British in 1948 but by G-d in a much earlier time. Israel, from the river Jordan to the sea. Palestinians would be welcome if they were not so self-exploding and right-to-returnish.
"Christians should be fighting their common enemies."
BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.