The greatest way to respond to the injustices done against Jews is to stand against injustices committed against anyone, anywhere.
A great statement and a good discussion from Mike Todd about a thorny topic. What are your thoughts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
A thoughtful comment from Julie. I just wish she’d left it over at my place, because this is exactly the conversation I’ve been trying to start over there!
Personally, I would argue that God’s covenant with Israel was provisional, and that the terms of the deal have been broken. But even if that is too much to swallow, I think we need to tease out more thinking on what it means to “stand with God’s chosen” when they are the perpetrators of unjust actions. I don’t know how to reconcile that.
Julie’s comments are thoughtful indeed, and they deserved a response. Thanks for pitching in Todd. And Julie, sorry for the delay. I generally agree with your sense of even-handed application of justice to everyone in the conflict. I think that’s very wise of you! However, I disagree that the land belongs to Israel because of their covenant with God. I think all of that has passed.
I tend to agree with Todd’s general trajectory about God’s covenant with Israel, although perhaps with some differences. I would say (with Paul, I think), that God’s covenant is still with Israel, but that “Israel” is not defined ethnically, but by faith (as in, “A true Jew is one who is circumcised of the heart”). True Israel, then, is the people of God, AKA, the Church.
And I should add, to hopefully head of any Dispensationalists at the pass, that I don’t see the Church as the “replacement” of Israel per se, but, rather, I see Christ himself as the fulfillment of Israel’s original calling to “bless the nations” by reconciling the world to God through himself. Christ fulfilled Israel’s vocation to bring everyone into their faith-based identity as the people of God.
Consequently, there are no longer any claims to the land or the physical temple by any ethnic group. All of that has been done away with and fulfilled in Christ and his expanded olive tree of multi-ethnic people, AKA, the Church. The Kingdom is not the land and the temple is not the building. Those were the provisional “shadows” of the reality to come. They are now fulfilled in the Kingdom of God that Christ inaugurated and the new bodily “temple” that he began building with diverse people.
So, in my view, there is no prior prejudice by God toward any of the participants in the current tensions that now exist in the Middle East. We must simply (although there is nothing simple about it), advance whatever is just, without prejudice.
None of this means that Modern ethnic Jews/Israelis don’t deserve their own nation. I think they do, and I think Palestine is the right location for it. However, I don’t think their ancient religious claims entitle them to exclusivity today. This is the ancient land of the Palestinians as well, and has been for far longer. Atrocities have been committed by both side, going back a very long time, and prior to 1948 it was the resident Jews who were the “terrorists.”
The sooner Zionism is divorced from a rationale based on the Torah, the better. Jews and Palestinians both deserve to be in that region for humanitarian reasons, and for historical reasons, not for religious reasons. Our religious ethics, especially via Jesus, however, can and should ably guide us in determining what justice looks like for everyone.
At least, that’s what I think : )
That’s exactly what I think, too, Jason. Not sure if it’s like this where you are, but if I were to say that publicly where I am, I would undoubtedly encounter a firestorm of criticism from fellow Christians.
But I think it’s important enough to be clear, as you and Mike have been. It seems to me to be the most responsible way to read the New Testament. Paul is pretty explicit, especially in Galatians.
Well, I’m fortunate to be a “nobody.” If I had a “real” church in San Diego (you know, with a public sanctuary, pulpit, and radio ministry) I’m sure I would encounter some criticism, but it’s nothing like what Bert Waggoner experienced when he condemned Israel’s policies from his pulpit in Houston : )
Mike:
Feel free to take my comments any time for your blog.:-) Just make sure you tell me when you do in case I need (or feel the need) to respond to anyone who wants me to elaborate on anything.
“I would argue that God’s covenant with Israel was provisional, and that the terms of the deal have been broken.”
Are you talking about based on scriptures from the Bible or based on actions since or both?
Also, God’s promise is a promise and although we as humans will always find a way to screw up *our* end of the deal (leading to bring about consequences – both momentary and lifelong depending on the extent of our sinful actions), God will be faithful to his promise. So out of curiousity – what lead you to that belief?
Jason:
“And Julie, sorry for the delay.”
Oh, yes. I was so offended by your delay – I forgot all about this post.:-) May a camel come and spit in your vegetable garden and may all of your tomatoes taste like the waxy kind from the store – Mu’hahahaha….!
Anyway –
“This is the ancient land of the Palestinians as well, and has been for far longer.”
That *is* true.
“I would say (with Paul, I think), that God’s covenant is still with Israel, but that “Israel” is not defined ethnically, but by faith”
“Christ fulfilled Israel’s vocation to bring everyone into their faith-based identity as the people of God.”
I have never thought about it that way before. I’m not sure if I agree but that is a very convincing (and logical) argument and viewpoint (if not interpretation). Do you get that from the message of Christ’s death and resurrection in general or is there other specific scriptures that lead you to this conclusion?
As far as I’m concerned – I’m definitely going to have to re-read the scriptures concerning this specific matter again. I have to admit, it’s been quite a while since I’ve read the Bible while having specific thought and questions in mind concerning the land of Israel and the Jewish people. (One more thing added to my never ending list.:-) )
Hi Julie: I’d say that God’s promise is a promise… unless God says it isn’t a promise. For my assertion that this was a provisional arrangement I look to Exodus 19:5,6 for some indication.
“Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”
This is an If/Then statement, not an unconditional promise. I understand the “God’s promise is a promise” line of thinking, and I also think that God has made such promises, but this clearly is not one of them. I’m no Hebrew scholar but I’m told that this particular verse is constructed with the strongest conditional language possible.
If/Then implies the opposite: If Not/The Deals Off, and I would submit that the final destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 symbolized the end of that contract. (I’d also say that Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection did something to the status of the Old Testament “arrangements, but that’s another discussion.)
I’m usually loathe to proof text to make a point, but I think this is an important one.
The other issue is this: If you (not ‘you’ Julie, but ‘you’ anyone!) dismiss the line of thinking above, and yet you believe there is even an element of truth to what I’ve said in this post and previous ones about the treatment of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israelis, then we need to have another conversation, as I originally implied. We need to state clearly that God is a God of justice, mercy and love, except when it comes to the Palestinians, because God’s promise to Israel takes precedence, and presumably absolves them of any responsibility for actions taken to ‘protect the land’, even though God had apparently allowed them to be carried off into exile before.
It’s obviously complicated. My only real point in raising the issue at all was to point out that the simplistic “facts” many of us in the western church have been using to support our own blind support of Israel just don’t cut it.
Great dialogue.
I came across a relevant piece today… is this Palestinian/Arab/Muslim worth listening to?
Or has he simply been bought off by the Jews who according to Mike are propogating a big lie?
Hi Rick - I’ve approved your comment, though I suspect you’re not very interested in open dialogue. Mike has not said that the Jews are propagating a lie. You might want to read his original posts more carefully. He has said that there are injustices committed by both sides and challenged the unthinking support by Christians of Israel’s policies, especially where that support is based on poor exegesis of scripture. If you have anything to add to that aspect of this topic you’re welcome to share it here.
The article you link to contains an indictment of the character and motives of the Palestinian press. I don’t doubt that. Nor do I condone it. But it doesn’t change my conclusions. I don’t condone the deceitful and unjust actions of Palestinian groups any more than those of Israeli groups. The vices of Palestinian groups do not make virtues out of Israeli policies.
Jason, my reference to Mike and the propagation of the big lie is in reference to his post here. If I’m misreading what Mike is saying there, then my apologies, but I believe it to be relevant to this discussion.
I’ve attempted to dialog on this topic in this post, excerpting a number of prominent people who are alarmed at the rise of anti-semitism globally and especially from the intellectual left. I think it too is relevant to this discussion.
What I and people like me are looking for as we look to dialog on this is balance.
I think we can all agree that at times, the Israelis have been heavy handed. But perhaps as a people if we’ve had to endure what Jews have endured and are enduring, we might be more understanding. I don’t condone heavy handedness, but neither can I condone what’s led to it. And what I see missing from opinions coming from too many quarters is any blame for the Palestinians or the radical Muslims who use them for their own political motives.
Perhaps if there were more balance in the criticism of Israel and the entire Palestinian issue coming from the Left, there’d be less stridency in the dialog.
I guess I closed down the dialogue.
Sorry.
Hi Rick,
Sorry, I honestly haven’t had time to jump back into the discussion until now. I don’t think you closed down the dialogue. I actually appreciate that the tone of your last comments were a bit more even-handed.
Still, I have to admit, it’s hard to take you seriously when you say things like:
“…alarmed at the rise of anti-semitism globally and especially from the intellectual left.”
I don’t know who the intellectual left are according to you, but anti-semitism is a serious charge that bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to Mike’s posts or the conversation going on here. And the fact that you’re willing to link a person’s disagreement with Israel’s policies – or even questioning the validity of the religious foundations of Zionism – with anti-semitism simply demonstrates that you either don’t know what anti-semitism really is, or you don’t comprehend the nuances of the political and/or theological debate.
I think your appeal to “balance” was well-stated, and I will go on record saying I, too, would like more balance concerning this topic. In fact, the irony is that “balance” is very close to the meaning of justice – which is what I, for one, am interested in (I’ll let Mike speak for himself). However, it’s hard to believe you really want balance when you’re willing to substitute character assassination for reasonable dialogue (and yes, character assassination is what you’re engaging in when you equate political or theological disagreements with anti-semitism). In the post you linked to one can readily see this in your direct attacks on Mike personally and your frequent use of the words and phrases like, “the left” to sweepingly characterizes whole groups of people without actually engaging with points and ideas. You won’t find any currency here with descriptions like “left” and “right.” I find those categories rather meaningless, and when you use them you aren’t actually saying anything of substance. Moreover, I’ll tell you right up front that I am a pacifist, so you won’t find any lack of criticism from me concerning the bloody methods of Palestinian para-military groups, or the Israeli state. My condemnation of violence is sweepingly broad and fair.
I’m willing to move forward with this discussion, but you’ll have to make direct counter-arguments that don’t resort to ad hominim attacks or other such viriole and rhetorical posturing. I’m happy to keep this going if you can engage in civil dialogue.
So…having said that, do you have anything to contribute to the conversation about the relationship of Israel and the Christian church with regard to Pauline theology and it’s implications for contemporary Israeli/Palestinian claims to the land?
Jason,
I think if you’d read my piece a little more carefully, you’ll see that my reference to the rise of anti-semitism amongst the left and is in actuality merely echoing similar thoughts from people like Cathy Young of the Boston Globe (though she references progressive intellectuals), Jack R. Fischel (who is actually quoting Alan Dershowitz), Phyliis Chesler and finally Ralf Dahrendorf.
In other words Jason… it’s not about taking me seriously… it’s about taking seriously the voices of those far brighter and far more widely read than little ole me. It’s one thing to think I know not the definition of anti-semitism… after all, who am I but someone easily dismissed by you and others… but please, read the piece again and understand that I’m referencing the mindset of those who deal with these issues as a vocation and not as a hobby. In other words Jason, perhaps it is you who needs to take the mindset I’m echoing a little more seriously and not be so quick to challenge my opinions.
As to the topic of this post and the ‘dialog’ sought… I think Julie’s opinions are those that align best with the traditional and orthodox understanding of Scripture. To suggest, as Mike has done, that God’s promise to the Jews was a conditional one is to suggest that Christ’s promise to us is as conditional… do we really want to go there?
Hi Rick – Thanks for the response.
I read your post, the whole thing. Again, I’m all for balance. But I’m not persuaded that any person or organization who focuses their critique on Israel is therefore anti-semitic. That is the assertion being made by you and others in the piece and it is a non-sequiter. Such people or groups may indeed be anti-semites, but the direction of their critique alone is not a sufficient indicator of that. There are many legitimate reasons why some people and organizations might choose to focus their criticism in one direction only…as a counterbalance to otherwise dominant critique in the opposite direction, for example. Your blog would be an example of that. Your criticism is overwhelmingly (perhaps some would say overwhelmingly) of political liberals. Does that mean you are racist against blacks, since the overwhelming majority of blacks are politically liberal? No. You might be racist, of course, but that fact your criticisms are almost exclusively aimed at black politics is not a valid indicator of that and it would be both illogical and irresponsible to claim so.
Concerning the topic of the dialogue here, I think we want to “go” wherever faithful exegesis of scripture takes us, whether we find it comforting or disconcerting. So, I have a few questions: 1) Can you name a single covenant in scripture that isn’t conditional (since that’s a defining feature of all covenants), 2) How do you reconcile Deut 27-30 with your assertion that God’s promise to the Jews wasn’t conditional, and 3) To what extent do you consider God’s covenant with the Jews to a valid basis for their claim to the land? (Or do you think there’s some other foundation for that claim?)
Mr. Todd, the Exodus verse you quote says naught about the land of Canaan which Scripture says was promised to the Hebrews. Sometimes a parent makes a promise to a child and at some later time the child displeases the parent. Does the parent then rescind the promise?
Let’s however speak of larger things. Remember that peace is not the absence of war, rather the peace of the Lord is internal. Free men will ever be forced to defend themselves against evil men, such as the “Palestinian”group Hamas. This is why self-defense is considered part of natural Law. Nowhere however do I see that God wants war to be proportional.
Joshua was commanded to kill everyone in Jericho.
Found this post from Rick’s blog.
There are some interesting themes rising out of this thread.
1. From Mike: “Personally, I would argue that God’s covenant with Israel was provisional, and that the terms of the deal have been broken. ”
What is the difference between a covenant and a contract? The two words are used interchangeably in Mike’s explanations. When Christ said, “It is finished”, the temple curtain tore in two from the top down and the law delivered to his chosen people was fulfilled. Granted, there are those Jews who do not subscribe to that new covenant, but if God fulfilled the law with a new covenant, who among us can change it?
He also said to his disciples of the blind man, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” Is there blindness in the MIddle East? Tension? Do both sides have a point? Maybe God is preparing to display a work soon.
Instead, his disciples stood around trying to decide on whom to cast judgment. People who hate church complain about that judgment thing a lot for some reason. Seems to be a persistent problem of human nature.
2. From Jason Coker: “So, in my view, there is no prior prejudice by God toward any of the participants in the current tensions that now exist in the Middle East. We must simply (although there is nothing simple about it), advance whatever is just, without prejudice. ”
Advancing whatever is just seems to get to the heart of the matter. It is one thing to sort out the theological stand point but at the end of the day the real point of it all is to figure out how to advance what is just.
This often means lobby/vote/demand some sort of political action for the Middle East. So really, the question may begin with religious roots, but to a political end.
From that stand point, if the time of covenants are passed (and really what difference does it make if they only exist as contracts) then it begs the question, How did that nation of Israel get started in the first place? What in the world happened for the Jews to be given that patch of land that is said to have squeezed out the Palestinians, anyway?
And once those questions are answered, then it leads to the next question which is, who really is the cause of all this mess anyway?
The historical answer to that question speaks to why questions of Israeli soveriegnty on that land leads the dialog straight to racism. People who “side with both” in a spirit of fairness to all would do well to acknowledge the impact of the holocaust on developing the Jewish state of Israel if they truly wanted any progress to be made in the dialog.
Just some thoughts. For what it’s worth.
Hi Steve (and others) - Thanks for jumping in. I’m going to take this opportunity to detail my overall theological stance on this issue, partly because you and I are clearly coming from very different perspectives and I think it’s important to try clear the air of my assumptions in order to give this dialogue a chance. Forgive the length, but I think you’ll find it necessary for clearing the air:
1. The Exodus verse Mike quotes sits within a much larger context, namely the context of covenant, which includes the land and all other promises made to Israel. If you want more context start by going to Gen 15 and then Deut 27-29. God made a covenant with Israel, delineated the terms of the covenant and declared a curse if they were to break it, and Israel broke the covenant. This really isn’t a controversial point.
2. Your parent-child analogy – while it obviously serves certain aspects of the God-man relationship well – doesn’t work well for the covenant, because covenants are, by definition, conditional. One could say that, in this regard, covenant IS the cultural human artifact God chose to establish his redemptive trajectory, so to superimpose another human artifact (parenthood) on top of the Abrahamic covenant in order to interpret its nuances breaks our ability to understand what’s specifically going on. (Of course, in a broader, more general sense parenthood is a powerful metaphor for understanding God’s over-arching motives and intentions regarding humanity – namely, that He loves us and wants us to mature). Moreover, perhaps it’s important to point out that God’s covenant with Abraham explicitly retains the conditionality distinctive to other ancient near-eastern covenants. Again, see Gen 15 with its delineations of conditional terms. And again, Israel broke those terms. To my knowledge, nobody seriously disagrees with that observation – in fact, the prophets are rather famously outspoken about it. It was exactly because of their unfaithfulness that the Jews were exiled. See Daniel 9 for a brief, after-the-fact, prophetic confession on this point. But if you’re unconvinced, just go back and read all the pre-exile prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah should suffice). You can’t miss it. For a later articulation of the conditionality of the covenant, see John the Baptist’s threat to the Jews (Matt 3:7-10), a threat that is, incidentally, echoed throughout the writings of Paul and the book of Hebrews as well (but that’s another topic, isn’t it?).
3. But here’s an important point: None of this means that has God doesn’t fulfill his end of the covenant terms. In fact, his faithfulness to the terms of the covenant is exactly what it means for him to be “righteous.” Moreover, I would contend based on Genesis 15 that God himself actually fulfills the obligations of both sides of the covenant. In other words he takes upon himself the burden of keeping both his end of the bargain AND Israel’s end of the bargain (see Gen 15 where God alone passes through the halved pieces of the animals, signaling that he along is subject to the ultimate punishment of unfaithfulness to it – death). Specifically, he fulfills both ends of the covenant through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through Jesus Christ the enduring promise God made to Abraham (to “bless the nations” – Gen 12:3) is fulfilled by creating a new multi-ethnic people who are altogether the “sons of God” by faith in Him, AND God fulfills Israel’s promise to himself (to be faithful to God’s law) through in the person and work of Christ.
4. Yet, there is a surprise. And this is what Christian Zionists have been completely blind to: It turns out that God’s promises to Abraham weren’t ultimately (as the Jews mistakenly came to believe) to create an exclusive ethnic group that belonged to God with an exclusive patch of real estate that contained His Kingdom and his people. Not only were those promises conditional, more importantly they were provisional as a means of fulfilling the ultimate promise to “bless the nations.” Rather, Paul and the author of Hebrews reveal that God’s ultimate intention all along, through Christ, was that God’s Kingdom would come to the whole world (see Isaiah 2:1-4). That is why there is no longer any dividing line between Jew and gentile, man and woman, slave and free (Gal 3:28). The promise to Abraham (Gen 12 & 15), that God fulfilled in Jesus Christ, was not to create a nation-state called Israel, it was to reconcile the whole world to himself through Israel, which is first and foremost Christ, but then, following after him as the “second Adam” (Rom 5:12-6:5), “Israel” is now a new multi-ethnic people group defined by faith (Rom 2:28-29 and 3:21-31). So, by faith in Christ we are all “true Jews” and heirs to the faith of Abraham. Those promises are no longer for a patch of real estate in the middle east – that was a provisional “shadow” of the true Kingdom to come and was already fulfilled prior to the exile – rather, it is the promise to reconcile all mankind to God, and to bring true peace to the world, setting right all the wrongs and injustices that were done by mankind’s original sinful rebellion.
5. In this way the OT promises to Abraham have nothing whatsoever to do with the modern nation-state of Israel. Of course, ethnic Jews are not by any means excluded from the blessing that came to all of mankind through them – indeed they are welcomed as partakers of it along with the rest of mankind – but they hold no divine claim of exclusivity to old provisional promises already long fulfilled. The old provisional Kingdom, the old provisional people of God, and the old provisional temple have all passed; there is now a new Kingdom inaugurated by Christ that comes to the whole earth (Mark 1:14), a new multi-ethnic “people of God” created by Christ through faith (Eph 2:11-22), who together constitute the new temple (1 Peter 2). Therefore, there is no divine claim by Israel to the land they inhabit, there is no unfulfilled promise for the land or temple, and, as Christians, we owe no special allegiance to the Jews or any other ethnic group. Our allegiance is to the Christ, his Kingdom, and the peace that it’s continuing fulfillment is meant to bring on earth.
6. However, as I’ve said in previous comments, the Jews are not in any way excluded from the right, according to just and humane considerations, to a national homeland in their ancient area of origin. Still, those considerations apply equally to local indigenous Palestinians who’s ancestry in that region runs at least as deep, and perhaps even deeper, than that of the Jews.
7. The peace of the Lord is most definitely NOT merely “internal.” It may be rooted there, it may begin there, but an internal peace that does not manifest externally by “beating our swords into plowshares” and our “spears into pruning hooks” (again, see Isaiah 2) is not true shalom. One of the logical consequences of the redemptive trajectory outlined in #1-5 above is that because of Christ there need not be any place of religious contention between ethnic groups any longer. That is a major thrust of Paul’s argument in Galatians.
8. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “natural law” but such a concept has no place in the ethics of a Christian – our “natural” tendencies are broken, sinful, and untrustworthy (Proverbs 14:12). All laws, natural or otherwise, have been replaced by the divine influence of the Holy Spirit whose fruit (Gal 5:22) bears no resemblance whatsoever to the willingness to kill others for political boundaries or personal liberty. Christ, the apostles, and their earliest followers went to great lengths to bring the peace of the inaugurated Kingdom (both inwardly and outwardly) to people throughout the known world, irregardless of political and ethnic divisions – and when their personal safety and liberty were threatened, they gladly suffered beatings, imprisonment, and death without ever defending themselves violently.
(As an aside, let me add that followers of Christ place cannot place a value for personal life, liberty, or property above their allegiance to the Kingdom and its mission of peace, justice, and reconciliation for the whole world. Such concerns don’t always conflict, of course, and there are times when the pursuit of peace, justice, and reconciliation requires exclusion, censure, and perhaps even violence – particularly, I would argue, in defense of those who cannot defend themselves. However, the reduction of the gospel of Christ to some individualized form of the American Dream – “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” – is a grotesque perversion and a Modern American form of idolatry that should be thoroughly repented of by all American Christians. I’m looking at you Glen Beck.)
9. It’s this latter biblical narrative of Christ as servant-peacemaker that controls our interpretation of OT narratives like that in Joshua – not the other way around. Sometimes it is said that Jesus Christ is the controlling hermeneutic of the Bible. Hence, the violence done by God’s people in the OT doesn’t define how we are to be Christians today. Rather, it is Christ that controls how we interpret those OT passages. Therefore, what we see is that the OT passages describe how God’s provisional promises set the path for God’s trajectory of redemption which was fulfilled in Christ. Because that fulfillment finally inaugurated the long-awaited peace among “the nations” (that is, ethnic groups), Christ’s teaching and life – and his followers – now all point to a life of radical inward and outward peace, even a form of peace that is willing to be demonstrated through submissive, non-violent martyrdom (see Acts 6 for an example) – a martyrdom, incidentally, that is grotesquely mocked and parodied by suicide bombers.
10. Therefore, Christians are to demonstrate a radical commitment to peace and justice irregardless of ethnicity, religion, sex, national loyalties, or even personal liberty and safety. Further, a distinctive of the Christian commitment to peacemaking is that it is not based merely on who is “in the right” in any given disagreement. Nuances of guilt and are of course relevant to any conflict resolution, but as Paul points out in Romans 3, everyone is equally guilty – a verdict that applies to most human conflicts, and one that fits the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather well; Israel and the Palestinians are both equally guilty of severe injustices, and therefore are both equally excluded from claims to vindication. Rather, the peace we offer is based on the radical form of reconciliation found in Jesus Christ through repentance and forgiveness, acts that are not limited to individuals alone, but can be practiced by entire groups, including nation-states. In other words, I’m saying that Israelis and Palestinians need not become “Christians” in order to benefit from the peace that Christ taught and fulfilled. They merely need to follow his teachings (Matt 5-7). Anyone can seek to do so, regardless of their race or religion. It worked rather well for Ghandi.
For examples of large-scale repentance and forgiveness, see the history of the Truth and Reconciliation commissions in South Africa, or the current movement towards forgiveness and reconciliation in Rwanda, as documented by films like As We Forgive and My Neighbor My Killer.
Hi Leslie - Thanks for joining. Some nice thoughts here and some very good questions.
First, there is no difference, essentially, between a contract and a covenant. There are several differences in practice, between modern contracts and ancient near-eastern covenants – for example, our contracts are generally assumed to be between equals and for the purpose of producing equity, while ancient suzerain-vassal covenants were between a greater and lesser party and meant to establish allegiance – but the latter is basically a precursor to the former.
Second, while it’s probably necessary on some level to sort out the origins of the Jews and Palestinians in the region and consider it with regard to current claims, at the end of the day I would suggest it doesn’t really matter because there is so much “water under the bridge” it’s impossible to sort out from whose bucket each gallon originated. Both groups are from there; both groups are staying there; both groups have committed ample atrocities in the conflict. What is needed is a mutual attitude of repentance and forgiveness, and a subsequent willingness to divide up the land equitably according to actual need regardless of religious claims, historical precedent, or some notion of greater guilt.
I know that’s a gross oversimplification, but it is nevertheless “in a nutshell” what I think needs to occur.
>>First, there is no difference, essentially, between a contract and a covenant.
This seems to be a common sentiment in this thread. What is the source for this definition?
>>while it’s probably necessary on some level to sort out the origins of the Jews and Palestinians in the region and consider it with regard to current claims, at the end of the day I would suggest it doesn’t really matter because there is so much “water under the bridge” it’s impossible to sort out from whose bucket each gallon originated.
It appears you feel there is only two buckets. What is your perception of why the Jewish nation state of Israel was formed?
I’m trying to understand something, though before I get to that, allow me to first say that I’m encouraged at the voluminous use of Scripture to buttress a position… not exactly what I’m used to coming from someone I see to be more liberal than most… though I’ll confess that my vision extends only as far as what I’ve read on this thread, meaning the vision could be blurred.
But here’s what I’m trying to get.
Is the argument being put forth that Israel, as covenant breakers, ought to be kicked out of the region? That too might be a gross oversimplification but I’m trying to understand the perspective. Or is it that Israel, as covenant breakers, shouldn’t defend themselves? Or is it that pacifists have problems with Israel defending themselves (since logically, pacifists won’t defend themselves)?
For me, the issue is whether or not Israel has the right to exist. My assumption is that all on this thread believe that they do. If they do, and given that their enemies, and they are legion, have sworn to their destruction, do they have the right to defend themselves? Perhaps not all would agree that they do, I’m not sure.
Really the question boils down to what should Israel do to protect themselves from suicide bombers and rocket attacks that target the innocent? And what would you do if you were in their shoes?
Again, I don’t condone brutality for brutality’s sake. But I think the criticism of Israel isn’t simply about brutality. I think it goes deeper than that. In fact, I can’t help but wonder how much of it has more to do with despising Zionist Christians or more particularly, the theology they embrace? Just a thought. After all, there are many oppressed people groups but it seems none that liberals align themselves more with… it’s just… curious.
Now Jason, I would like to respond to some of your charges.
You wrote:
You might be racist, of course, but that fact your criticisms are almost exclusively aimed at black politics is not a valid indicator of that and it would be both illogical and irresponsible to claim so.
Am I to understand that you’re saying I seem to almost exclusively criticize black politics? Really?
You accuse me of character assassination for being, well, brutally honest with Mike… someone I’ve known (in the cybersense) and followed for years… someone who thinks highly of Jim Wallis… who thinks highly of Jeremiah Wright… who doesn’t think highly of Jews…
In other words Jason, what you see as character assassination, I see to be conclusions drawn from reading Mike’s words for a very long time… which brings me another question… after reading Mike’s post on the propagation of the big lie, who do you see to be the liars that he refers to? I’m simply curious.
And finally, is it character assassination to assume that someone needs to grow up? Or is it something you’ve concluded based on wat the allegedly immature has written? I’m curious about that too.
Hi Rick - Saying you should “grow up” was a cheap shot. My apologies. I don’t think your liberal (pun intended) use of stereotyping and broad sweeping generalizations are a helpful or responsible way to dialogue, but I shouldn’t have equated that with immaturity. My Bad.
Regarding my comment about black politics: I’m saying that the non-sequitur in your post (exclusive critique of Israel’s policies = anti-semitism) is akin to someone saying you’re a racist because you exclusively criticize “liberal” politics, since blacks are largely politically liberal. I’m not making that assertion about you, I’m rebutting it by pointing out its absurdity – and, by extension, rebutting your charge of anti-semitism by pointing out its absurdity.
On to your more specific questions:
1. No, I don’t think Israel should be kicked out of the region (see #6 where I was quite clear on that point). No, I’m not saying they shouldn’t defend themselves. Every nation must be able to do so. My 10 points are aimed at a Christian posture toward Zionism. My argument is that Israel has no special claim to the land based on their ancient covenant with God, and, more to the point, Christians in particular have no obligation to defend Israel’s claim to the land other than via a general commitment to justice on behalf of all people – which includes Palestinians.
2. “What should Israel do to defend themselves against suicide bombers and rocket attacks?” Well, I think that’s a complex question that requires a multi-layered answer. But, to begin with, I don’t think there will be peace in the region until Israel admits that the Palestinians have as much right “to exist” and have a homeland in the area as they do…and the Palestinians must do the same concerning Israel. Until that happens – and I realize it might never happen given the deep hatred that exists on both sides – there will be no peace. This is part of the “repentance” I was referring to (though, not all of it).
3. You said, “After all, there are many oppressed people groups but it seems none that liberals align themselves more with… it’s just… curious.” This is more of the generalizing I was referring to. I don’t know who the liberals are, and I don’t know why that term is relevant. Rather than jumping to speculative conclusions, let’s just stick to dialoging about concrete specifics. I can tell you that what I despise is inequality, injustice, exploitation, violence, and so on. I despise those things no matter who perpetrates them, and the fact is Israel is as guilty of oppressive tactics as Palestinians – going back to before 1948. In Western Christendom the historic position is to vilify the Palestinians and unquestioningly support the Israeli’s, mostly because we think there’s a theologically-based obligation to do so. For my part, my position is simply to bring a biblical assessment of the situation, and, because I’m a pastor, that is most expressed by revealing the flawed theology behind Zionism.
4. Regarding Mike’s “lie” narrative: I really don’t know who Mike is going to point to. However, if Mike thinks anything like me then he’ll probably point to a constellation of systemic evil that is the natural by-product of those who mistakenly believe that we wrestle against “flesh and blood,” when, in reality we wrestle against “principalities and powers.” In short, I’m sure the people involved in circulating the currency of this “lie” – some Israeli’s, some members of the Western media, some leaders of U.S. politics and military, and a great many leaders in Christian churches who believe Islam constitutes a threat to Christianity and Western liberty – fully believe it. In other words, this is a matter of true spiritual warfare. Obviously similar lies concerning Jews are believed and propagated as well. Indeed, they have possibly been the most oppressed ethnic group in human history. That’s what makes their role as an oppressor in the middle east so ironic.
Back to my previous, unanswered questions:
1. Can you name a single covenant in scripture that isn’t conditional,
2. How do you reconcile Deut 27-30 with your assertion that God’s promise to the Jews wasn’t conditional, and
3. To what extent do you consider God’s covenant with the Jews to a valid basis for their claim to the land? (Or do you think there’s some other foundation for that claim?)
May I add to this discussion?
Firstly, from a jewish perspective, not all jews do believe that the ‘new’ state of Israel is valid. For example the Hasidim, a historical minority here in Antwerp, are still here, and not in Israel. A lot of Hasidim believe that without a God-annointed Messiah it is wrong to have this Israelian state again. So not even all jews (and you cant’ get more orthodox than the Hassidim) are for the state of Israel as it is now. Extreme anti-zionist jewish groups among the Hasidim for example are the Satmar, Toldos Aharon and Dushinsky.
Another thing is our palestinian christian brothers and sisters; just wikipedia is enough to see that they also suffer from the Israelian state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Christians
A friend of mine has been in Palestine (and in Israel), behind the walls, and seen lots of things that were really not good for the people there. Not all of the palestinians do support Hamas, but treating them like Israel does now is the best way to make the support of anything anti-Israel grow…
Just some observation to add to the discussion…
Bram
Hi Leslie,
“This seems to be a common sentiment in this thread. What is the source for this definition?”
An English dictionary. A Bible dictionary. Wikipedia. Take your pick. It’s common knowledge. Or, you could read through the covenants of the Old Testament, such as Gen 15, and observe for yourself that it is an agreement between two parties with terms and conditions, corresponding obligations and punitive consequences for breaking the terms. In a nutshell, that’s a contract.
“It appears you feel there is only two buckets. What is your perception of why the Jewish nation state of Israel was formed?”
Certainly there are more parties involved than just Israel and Palestine. I was simply trying to point out that a peace based on a tally of who has committed more wrongs is futile given the very long and convoluted history. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your question about my “perception” of why Israel was formed, and it’s a very general question. Maybe you could tell me what you’re curious about specifically?
[...] interesting discussion on this topic can be found on Jason Cokers pastoralia blog, especially in the comment section, and on the Mike [...]
Jason,
Apology not necessary. Just wanted to make sure that your dislike of ad hominems wasn’t selective as you seem to be as quick as anyone to employ them (you might recall your first words to me on this thread, implying, without a scintilla of evidence, that I’m not interested in open dialogue, a different way of simply calling me a troll).
And I have the same desire as to your dislike of generalizations… go back and read through your words, you use them too (blacks are liberals, Israel is as guilty of oppressive tactics as Palestinians, Christians support Israel because of Zionism) and it’s because you believe them to be true. So again, if you’re going to penalize my opinions because I use generalizations, I’d like to think that you’d penalize yourself).
I have to get off to the office this morning but hope to come back later today with specific comments to your last 4 points and answers to your 3 questions (though a quick response to question 1 is God’s unconditional promise to no longer flood the earth as done during Noah’s time).
Just checking back in, and responding to Steve comment regarding the covenant and the land. He’s right of course, the Exodus passage I cited doesn’t specific reference the land God gave to the Israelites. I would say however that it speaks of the larger covenant with the people, and as such I’m fairly comfortable with the idea that it includes the land. Otherwise we’re saying that while the larger “deal may be off”, the land is exempted because it wasn’t specifcially mentioned. That might be splitting hairs.
Regardless, I’m not suggesting that Israel should lose the land, or be “kicked out of the region.” I’m merely suggesting that there is no basis (moral, ethical, or theological) for a carte blanche endorsement of Israel and it’s policies toward the Palestinian people by the Christian church.
I do think it to be cogent, relevant and necessary to understand who is propagating the big lie that Mike has written about… especially if my assumption that it’s Israelis is incorrect…
And a 15 yard generalization flag I think should be thrown at Mike for his reference to “a carte blanche endorsement of Israel and it’s policies toward the Palestinian people by the Christian church” wouldn’t you say Jason? I mean I know a ton of leftist churches/denominations that do NOT support Israel and her policies toward the Palestinian people… so shouldn’t Mike be more specific? And would being specific hurt his argument?
Just sayin’.
“In other words, I’m saying that Israelis and Palestinians need not become “Christians” in order to benefit from the peace that Christ taught and fulfilled. They merely need to follow his teachings (Matt 5-7). Anyone can seek to do so, regardless of their race or religion. It worked rather well for Ghandi.”
Though it can be argued that those who follow the teachings of Christ are following Christ himself and they’d have a good one to a degree (small degree at that). However, those who do not give praise and glory and who are not committed to the one true God….well, let’s just say I’m not convinced they are benefiting from the peace that Christ taught especially when they do not follow him or when they are too busy accepting the ways of other “gods” – example Ghandi (which is why that although I respect some teachings from other faiths because some of those teachings are supported Biblically as well – I do not respect those religions nor respect the choices of those – such as Ghandi – to follow such religions as they worship other gods. Which is a form of fornication – and that should never be respected).
Although Ghandi is a peaceful man it sometimes irritates me when followers of Christ point to him as an example for Christ like teachings. Simply because one cannot enter the Kingdom of God with out coming through Christ himself (and not by also dabbling into other gods and walking in their steps). Personally, I think that further misleads an already mislead world into thinking that as long as they make “nice, nice” with Christ, they can follow the false gods and still be on Christ’s “good side” and all will be “ok”.
(sorry – I don’t mean to change the subject nor do I mean to accuse you of saying or implying anything but like I said – it’s a huge pet peave of mine).
Thanks for your response, Jason.
“This seems to be a common sentiment in this thread. What is the source for this definition?”
An English dictionary. A Bible dictionary. Wikipedia. Take your pick.
Wikipedia? I feel surprised when I see an answer like this. Considering the big words like dispensationalism used earlier, this type of source citing makes me wonder if you don’t think I can handle an actual publisher name, or perhaps you don’t feel I am aware of the differences in the way different publishers define things. Some are more liberal than others. I ain’t no preacher, but give me a chance…which Bible dictionary do you use? Since you made it clear we are talking about Israel from a theological perspective I’m not sure a secular English dictionary really applies here. I could be wrong.
Certainly there are more parties involved than just Israel and Palestine. I was simply trying to point out that a peace based on a tally of who has committed more wrongs is futile given the very long and convoluted history. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your question about my “perception” of why Israel was formed, and it’s a very general question. Maybe you could tell me what you’re curious about specifically?
This is an interesting direction to take in answering my question. I wasn’t heading for a tally of who committed more wrongs. A lack of awareness of the historical event that prompted world leaders to create the Jewish nation state of Israel in the 1940s often hampers Christian discussions about the Israeli issue.
In fact, since wikipedia came up, searching “History of Israel” might shed a little light on things…scroll down to 1945-1947.
If people are going to be honestly evaluating Israel’s role in the Middle East, it is impossible to do that without examining how the state itself came to be.
Could someone here on this thread please name the historical event for me? What happened to the Jews to prompt global agreement for the formation of Israel?
Mike, you often refer to the people of the downtown east side as misunderstood. I’m sure people who live there have a deep mistrust for just about everyone. How well does judgment work in fostering trust relationships on the DTES? So then, given the history Jewish people have with Europe as well as the Palestinians, what motivation is there for them to trust?
Especially given that the progressive world seems to be speaking against the Jews again. 1947 wasn’t long ago. And, the Palestinian bombs dropping on schools of Sderot is right now.
Hitler’s 1939 White Paper called for an independent Palestinian state. Why?
So if I were a Jew today, how would I interpret the voice of the white western academic clergy who persistently sided with Palestine in the name of “peace and fairness”? They would have every right to see that support as having that Jesus fellow written all over it. That fellow who had the audacity to call himself the Son of God. He came in the name of “peace” too.
Again, just a thought.
Sorry, the blockquotes didn’t work. These should have been block quoted:
>> “This seems to be a common sentiment in this thread. What is the source for this definition?” An English dictionary. A Bible dictionary. Wikipedia. Take your pick.
>>Certainly there are more parties involved than just Israel and Palestine. I was simply trying to point out that a peace based on a tally of who has committed more wrongs is futile given the very long and convoluted history. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your question about my “perception” of why Israel was formed, and it’s a very general question. Maybe you could tell me what you’re curious about specifically?
Jason,
I promised a fuller response and here’s my shot at it. First to your answers:
1. Both you and Mike seem to be suggesting that Christian support of Israel is largely based on Zionism… and I find that curious… why wouldn’t Christian support of Israel be based on a sense of shared values, of common enemies, of a recognition and affirmation of the U.N.’s decision to set aside land in 1947 for the Jews?
2. Why is my question complex? Seems most simple to me and within the context of what happened to 6 million Jews during WWII, it makes the question even simpler. I don’t understand the desire to make answering the question complex or multi-layered. It seems like a dodge.
3. You really don’t know who the liberals are Jason? C’mon man… it’s a label widely used with definitive meaning. Why be coy about this? And why the return to the “flawed theology of Zionism”? This is maddeningly frustrating. I consider the Zionism charge to be a canard frankly, a generalization, a label… something you seem to despise when I use them. I can’t understand what’s so hard to see about Americans granting allegiance to a people who’ve overcome adversity, who are governed by a democracy, who respect freedom and again, who have the same enemies. Why can’t supporting Israel be about those things and not Zionism?
4. You can count me amongst those who see Islam as a threat to liberty. You can count me amongst those who see the Jews as the most oppressed in history. But you can’t count me amongst those who see them as oppressors. You can count me amongst those who see their defense of their homeland and their people, in light of their being one of the most oppressed people in history, to be practical. And again I ask you and Mike… who are the propagators of the big lie if not the Jews? Again, it’s a simple question with a simple answer.
Now on to your questions.
1. I think I’ve already answered this one.
2. I read the Scriptures from a perspective of the whole and not particular chapters. Either the Jews are God’s chosen or they are not. Either Christ was a Jew or He was not. Either the Promised Land was promised or it was not. Again, I’m a simple guy who sees things simply.
3. I’ll leave that to those who love to engage in Scriptural Swordplay… I used to be one of them, I no longer am. The more relevant issue for me the Western world’s recognition of Israel statehood, the role the U.N. played in it and Israel’s right to defend herself against those who have sworn to her annihilation especially in the light of what took place some 60+ years ago. Again, it seems so damned simple to me.
Everyone - I’m going to have to be brief tonight. Please don’t misinterpret that for curtness.
Rick -
1. Fair question. I’ve never insinuated that all Christian support is based on Zionism. I’m sure it isn’t, and I have opinions about the other possibilities you outline (and maybe we could discuss those sometime). But I’m confident – based only on personal experience, mind you – that Evangelical support for Israel is based largely and foundationally on a form of Christian Zionism which, IMO, stems from a faulty theology. Given that theology is my training and vocation, it’s entirely appropriate for me to focus on that.
2. I didn’t dodge the question, I answered it. My answer is that Israel should respond to the violence by repenting and seeking forgiveness, as should the Palestinians. That is the only possible way to achieve true peace. Volumes have been written about how to achieve peace through the teachings of Christ, so I don’t understand why the complexity of the issue escapes you. I’m sure you can imagine that my straightforward statement would involve tremendous complexity in practice.
3. You were speculating about the motives of people who you deem to be “liberal.” In my case that’s an inaccurate label, so I’m justified in asking you to define what you mean by it, but even if it weren’t your speculation doesn’t constitute an argument. If you have a logical argument to make, make it.
4. I’ve already answered the question about who I think propagates the lie that all Palestinians are dangerous. Feel free to respond to my answer.
——
1. The Noahnic covenants (both of them) were conditional. You can read the conditions God imposed on Noah in the second covenant (the one you’re referring to) in Gen 9:1-7.
2. But you didn’t answer the question…unless your answer is “I don’t.” You may be a simple guy, but Deut 27-30 is a delineation of the curses that would come upon Israel for unfaithfulness to the covenant. That make God covenant with them conditional, and that is the question at hand. So I ask you again, how do you reconcile it with your assertion that God’s covenant wasn’t conditional?
3. So, what I hear you saying is that you don’t consider the Bible to be a basis for Israel’s claim to the land. Or, you are agnostic on that point, so to speak. Is that right? If so, fine. That’s perfectly valid. More to the point, it would make my previous two questions largely irrelevant. But then it does make me wonder why you’ve wandered onto a Christian theology/ministry blog to have this conversation.
If you’re willing to concede that Israel has no legitimate divine right to the land then we could move on to discuss your other concerns. Perhaps I would agree with those!
Bram - Thank you for sharing that. It’s an important point that is often overlooked.
Julie - I don’t see any reason why Ghandi’s work doesn’t qualify as Kingdom work just because he wasn’t a Christian. All truth is God’s truth and belongs to the Kingdom no matter who speaks it. All justice is God’s justice no matter who sows or reaps it.
Leslie -
My point was that it is commonly accepted knowledge. I wasn’t citing a source, merely stating what is widely accepted by both liberals and conservatives. Feel free to look it up anywhere you want (the New Bible Dictionary is a good source if you want me to name one). If you find a different opinion feel free to bring it back and we can talk in more technical detail.
I’m very aware of the history of how the Israeli nation-state came about and why, but it’s not practical for me to write a few thousand words delineating my understanding of that history (and, yes, that’s how long it would have to be). It’s not that I wouldn’t enjoy the exercise, it’s just that it’s a massive rabbit trail and I don’t have the time.
It would be much more efficient for you to simply make your salient arguments about what you believe is relevant to this discussion from that history. Don’t you think? If you do, I would be happy to engage your argument.
I think your point about the perspective of contemporary Jews is very important. Obviously, there is the massively looming specter of the holocaust – something that cannot and should not ever be diminished. However, it is their peculiarly horrific history of being treated unjustly that should compel Israel as a nation to act with radical justice and mercy. Moreover, this very concept is echoed emphatically throughout the Torah (and here we find ourselves, interestingly, circling back to the conditions of the covenant again).
One more thing: I don’t have to imagine how Jews would respond. In my experience, Jews respond to these issues with diversity of reactions. Interestingly, I have a friend who goes to Jewish organizations here in my area and speaks on behalf of the suffering of Palestinians. His experience has been that although a few tend to get angry with him, his listeners are overwhelmingly fair and open-minded, even if they ultimately disagree. I think that speaks to the general sensitivity and fair-mindedness with which he approaches the issue.
The american use of the word ‘liberal’ is very funny. Here in Belgium the ‘liberals’ (a political party influenced by neo-liberalism) are strong atheists who propagate the same kind of jungle law capitalism based on ‘survival of the fittest’ as the american conservatives (who don’t seem to be aware that it is just a form of darwinism applied to economics, which has absolutely nothing to do with any christian tradition) American conservatives sometimes just seem to use the word for everyone they disagree with… Can’t there be more nuance? Liberalism as a political philosophy is well-defined, as is Religious liberalism. Using it as a container word just strips the word of any meaning…
Just as the whole conservative-liberal dichotomy, which is just nonsense. There is a whole spectrum in much more dimensions, not just 2 options…
And on the subject of the palestines. A friend of mine was there, in Betlehem, behind the wall with the palestines. It is not right how people are treated there. Sorry. Isreal or not, injustice is injustice, and this way of treating people is nothing but a recipe for more terrorism…
Jason,
Again thanks for the time taken to respond. I think we’re likely at an impasse (surprise!) on this issue, nevertheless, a few more thoughts.
1. I agree that as part of your vocation and training, focusing on faulty theology as a root cause seems common sensical. But I think we got to this thread and this place by the assertion that Christian support of Israel is based on Zionism and that’s far too general a supposition to make unless there’s substance and support to make it. While I’ll allow that Zionism might be a faulty theology, I dismiss the notion that it’s the sole reason Christians support them. It’s reasoning far too narrow for those who usually decry narrow mindedness.
2. I find it hard to swallow that we as Christians would expect Muslims and Jews to act as Christians ought when it comes to forgiveness and repentance. Though I recognize that both are tenets of the faith for all 3 religions, I somehow doubt that they are as central to Jews and Muslims as they might (or ought to) be for Christians. Certainly Muslims are to be forgiving toward their brothers in the faith but to those of us outside of that belief system, not so much. And then to think that the secular minded would adopt these items as vehicles to peace… well… I think it utopian Jason. Sad thinking I’ll admit, but thinking based on reality.
3. I think it best we leave this one as is and recognize that we are miles apart on it. Your suggestion that the Jews in the region have been as oppressive as Muslims is simply hard fro me to get my arms around. You speak of being against injustice (as if some here might be for it) but I tell you that I think an assertion based on moral equivalence as to oppression in the region is an assertion that is most unjust.
4. Perhaps I’m slow. I continue to see Mike saying that Jews are responsible for propagating a big lie and will continue to see that until that time a cogent rebuttal is made. The rest is… again… dodgeball.
That’s all I have time for this morning… it’s off to make a buck as I’m one of those evil, oppressive, capitalists…
Rick -
1. Are you intentionally overlooking my words? I plainly stated that I don’t think a Zionist-leaning theology is the sole reason for Christian support of Israel. But I think I’m on solid ground that it is a highly significant reason, unless you have evidence to the contrary. After nearly 18 years in ministry in 3 states I think I have a valid perspective on this.
2. Well, the good news is you now appear to be grasping the “complexity” I was referring to. I agree such a vision will remain “utopian” as long as Christians around the world continue to abdicate their highest vocation of advancing the scandalously “unrealistic” peace of God by repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Bringing such a humble and radically nonsensical form of peacemaking to “the nations” was always the vocation of the “people of God” (again, see Is 2:1-4 and Micah 6:8), a vocation that the ancient Jews abdicated and Modern Christians likewise abdicate when they opt, instead, to support the more “simple” tit-for-tat militarized bloodletting of national-vengeance-as-peacemaking. If you are a Christian, advancing God’s form of peacemaking as inaugurated in Christ is your highest calling whether it seems realistic or not.
3. I’d be happy to continue dialoguing on this point. There are a couple roads we could take. 1) We could review the history. Not only the recent history of unjust violence perpetrated by both sides (unjust violence perpetrated by Palestinians is obvious, and widely reported in the West, so that should be easy to trace), but also the history of terrorist acts committed by Jewish settlers, against indigenous Palestinians, that predate the formation of the Modern state of Israel. 2) We could take a more philosophical approach and ask, “What standard of guilt and innocence is set by the Jews own moral law?” As a Christian, I’m sure you’ll know that the Torah itself asserts that to be guilty of breaking any of God’s moral laws causes one to be guilty of breaking the whole law. In other words, even if we can show that the state of Israel is guilty of any unjust act towards the Palestinians, that they would then have blood on their hands that rob them of any vindication based on their own righteousness. That’s not to say there isn’t vindication available to them – there is, as I’ve stated above, but such vindication cannot come through appeal to moral righteousness, but through appeal to mercy.
4. I’m starting to think you may indeed be “slow,” because I’ve stated very clearly – twice – that I cannot and will not speak for Mike. You can have that conversation with Mike. Maybe he will make a rebuttal, or maybe you’ve simply proven to be such a deaf conversation partner that he’s given up. I don’t know. What I do know is this: I’ve made my own assertion regarding who is responsible for propagating the lie that all Palestinians are dangerous, and you have yet to respond to my very clear (though, admittedly, not “simple”) proposition.
I’d be happy to move on to the other reasons you listed for siding with Israel. I propose we begin with “common enemies.”
5. Who are the “common enemies” and what kind of actions do you support Israel taking toward those enemies?
>>However, it is their peculiarly horrific history of being treated unjustly that should compel Israel as a nation to act with radical justice and mercy.
One minute their horrific history is an incidental rabbit trail unworthy of discussion, the next, it is the call to action for God’s chosen people. You must be a very wise and learned pastor to be able to say with confidence such proclamations. God be with you.
Leslie - Swing and a miss Leslie. You know perfectly well the “rabbit trail” I described was a reference to your request that I unpack my “perception of why the Jewish nation state was formed,” not a reference to the holocaust, or any of the pre-twentieth century injustices suffered by the Jews. Mis-representing my words is not a valid argument. Step up to the plate and try again. Keep your eye on the ball this time.
1. Not intentionally overlooking anything… just attempting to reconcile the seemingly, with an emphasis on seemingly, contradictory responses. And you’re talking to someone who has been engaging in these sorts of discussions for nearly as long as you’ve been in ministry, and my experience is different from yours. Not to say that there aren’t Zionist Christians out there for surely there are but not in the circles I’ve hung with (largely mainline denominations, particularly the Episcopal church, more recently the Catholic church). So my experience counters your own though I don’t think we can draw perfect conclusions based on our collective experiences nor should we. Neither should we draw perfect conclusions on our standalone experience.
2. Actually Jason, I think I’ve simplified your complex response. If we lived in a perfect world, the idea that Muslims, Jews, the secular, and anyone else who lives in the region would all embrace repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation might be plausible… but we don’t and I’d think that your 18 years in the ministry would validate that. It’s a fallen world last time I checked. The lion and the lamb lying together would be flukish and temporary this side of Christ’s return wouldn’t you say? We should absolutely pursue peace through every means possible short of war/violence initially… but history has also shown that vanquishing evil by force also brings peace… as painful as that might be, it’s reality.
3. 1) That’s a perfect setup/segue for calling just about any modern nation a nation of oppressors wouldn’t you say Jason… and I’m being serious… but just so I’m clear, you’re saying that Jews have targeted Arabs/Palestinians in a like manner that Palestinians/Arabs have targeted Jews… is that correct? 2) As a Christian, I’m aware that I can’t fulfill/keep the law no matter how hard I might try and in fact it’s why I’m a Christian… because I look to the perfect Jew who fulfilled the law so that in effect, I no longer have to. But I can’t impose that belief on anyone else and surely can’t expect a nation to act on that belief. Neither should I expect, because of what I know of human nature and because of what I’ve lived and experienced, that the road to peace can only be achieved in this manner… and dare I say, and here I’m sure we part, that any belief that denies Christ as Savior is a belief based on lies… and therefore problematic.
4. That looks and smells like yet another ad hominem coming from someone who abhors them when others engage similarly… I am slow… no doubt… but it doesn’t mean I can’t finish the race or string forth a cogent defense or proclamation of a perspective… and for a pastor no less to suggest otherwise seems over the top… this I think is your third missive aimed at me personally and yet I, who is supposed to have a reputation (ask Mike) for such behavior, haven’t responded in kind… but I digress… I’m not asking you to speak for Mike, and history has shown me that in fact, Mike abhors the tough questions… I see Mike’s big lie comment to be aimed directly at the Jews and indirectly at those nasty Zionist Christians… and until I hear a cogent argument that counters what I’m seeing (I’ve not yet), I’ll continue to hold to that opinion and in fact state clearly that this statement, and Mike’s past posts, that substantiate my charge that he and others who think similarly are engaging in what many are calling the new anti-semitism. The key for me here and perhaps this is an unfair position to take, is that you Jason clearly share a kinship with Mike… and I wonder why you aren’t interested in or pushing Mike to share with who the big liars are. I do find that odd especially since in my view it’s central to this entire thread.
5. The common enemy is radical Islam, not muslims generally but the ideology Islamists have adopted that see you and I and others as persons worthy of death because we don’t act or believe as they do. And I support those actions by Israel or anyone faced with this kind of threat that have historically dealt with belligerants though I’ll tell you right now that it has to be a last resort.
Jason, one more thing as I’ve just read Leslie’s words and then your response.
Again you’re caught making contradictory statements, called on it and you respond snidely and insultingly.
Not becoming brother… and at Mike’s place, I’m told that kind of behavior is fodder for banning… for life…
Just saying…
We’ve got a pretty decent back and forth going here… it’d be nice to keep it going without it getting ugly…
Jason,
I am not comfortable with exchanging snark with someone who claims some association to leading the church. I will close with your words as I think they speak the with the most volume to those who have ears to hear. Best wishes to your future pursuits.
>>However, it is their peculiarly horrific history of being treated unjustly that should compel Israel as a nation to act with radical justice and mercy.
“I don’t see any reason why Ghandi’s work doesn’t qualify as Kingdom work just because he wasn’t a Christian. All truth is God’s truth and belongs to the Kingdom no matter who speaks it. All justice is God’s justice no matter who sows or reaps it.”
I think I see your point. Although Ghandi’s work(s) (and others like him) doesn’t make him a follower of Christ (nor does it mean those Christ like works will get one into heaven) – Christ himself does continually work through the actions of those that are Kingdom and Christ like.
Where’s the contradiction Rick?
Obviously you are comfortable being snarky Leslie – and comfortable being intentionally misleading too. But I agree you’ve chosen to close with a good words. They sum up an important part of my position on this topic. Thanks again for participating and best wishes to you too.
Rick -
1. What contradictions? You spoke of this in regard to my comments with Leslie, but I don’t see any contradictions. Please point them out and be specific. Moving on…I think our different backgrounds explain a great deal about our different perceptions. Mainline church goers would be far less likely to feel a theologically driven obligation to unconditionally support Israel. My background is Evangelical, which tends to have a very strong sense of theologically-driven obligation toward Israel, particularly through the influence of dispensationalism. Thank you for sharing that. It’s helpful, I think, for understanding our different experiences and perceptions.
2. Vanquishing people by force may bring a temporary end to war, but it never brings shalom. Yes, it’s a fallen world, exactly…and the solution to our fallenness is the gospel, not warfare or force. It sounds like you’re saying the way of Christ is not a realistic solution to the problems in the real world.
3. 1) I’m saying the Jews are just as guilty of injustice as the Palestinians. 2) I agree we cannot impose a religious belief in Christ on anyone. That’s not what I’m suggesting, though I can understand why you might think I am. I am suggesting that the teachings of Christ, or the way of Christ can be practiced by anyone even if they’re not a Christian, and that Christ’s teachings about repentance and forgiveness can be implemented to bring about true peace between parties. Muslims, for example, are explicitly taught to revere Christ and follow his teachings, and are extremely receptive to doing so if it is not presented in terms of conversion to Western religious and political ideals.
Now here is a genuine contradiction, unless I am misunderstanding you: You said,
” [Part A] Neither should I expect, because of what I know of human nature and because of what I’ve lived and experienced, that the road to peace can only be achieved in this manner [through Christ]… and [Part B] dare I say, and here I’m sure we part, that any belief that denies Christ as Savior is a belief based on lies… and therefore problematic.”
In Part A you say that that it IS possible to achieve “peace” through other roads besides the way of Christ. Earlier, you explicitly mention the use of force as an example (as an aside, this, by itself, is an astonishingly unbiblical statement and I’d be interested how you reconcile it as a Christian)
But then in Part B you say that any belief that denies Christ as savior is false.
However, here’s where you contradict yourself (perhaps without knowing it): Bringing true peace (that is, forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration to “the nations”) to our broken world IS precisely what it means for Jesus Christ to be “savior.”
So, in Part A you affirm other paths to peace besides the way of Christ (specifically the use of force), but in Part B you condemn any way to peace other than the way of Christ.
4. You’re the one who called yourself slow, not me. As to the rest of it, we’ll both have to wait for Mike to weigh in. But MY answer is still awaiting a response.
5. I agree that radical religious extremists – Muslim, Christian, or otherwise – are a serious threat to peace-loving people. I’m deeply grieved by their beliefs and tactics. On that we can both agree wholeheartedly.
Since we are both Christians I’m wondering how Christ’s teachings concerning the treatment of “enemies” informs your support of the use of force and violence in response to them. This goes back to the latter half of #3 above; you either believe in Christs way of achieving peace, or you believe in the worlds way of achieving peace. You can’t have it both ways, because they are in radical opposition.
Jason,
1. I think Leslie covered the one… and I spoke to the notion that this entire thread was predicated on Mike’s Western Church/Zionist Christian post and since you linked to it, used words like great and good to describe it… well, I drew some conclusions. As an aside, I was a conservative Episcopalian attending an evangelical charismatic Episcopal church. I know quite a bit about evangelicals and would go so far as to describe that at one point, I was one. The Jews were certainly held in high esteem when the topic came up, but why wouldn’t they? Seems they are a focus of Scripture. I can’t help but ask what you and Mike and those who think like the both of you on this think of Genesis 12:2-3 for it seems that lots of contempt is being heaped on Israel these days (just look at what Obama’s doing) and the both of you are piling on.
2. Shalom too is temporary in this fallen world is it not Jason? Are you telling us that you’ve achieved shalom and live in that state constantly? I, quite bluntly, would call BS on that. Shalom will come when Christ returns. So I can’t quite see what you’re attempting to get at here. The way of Christ is an ideal. The way of Christ is a journey filled with the reality of evil and brokenness. The way of Christ is pursued but not quite ever fully grasped. And if you believe differently, and if you as a Pastor are teaching that belief, then you are placing a new law as constraining on your sheep as the old. And you’ve completely dismissed notions of grace or even the need for a Savior.
3. 1) So you are saying that Jews have with forethought and malice targeted old men, young women, small children, in other words what we’ve traditionally called the innocent, as often as Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, Fatah, and the myriad of other Palestinian terrorist groups have killed Jews and even other Palestinians who’ve been accused of siding with the Jews? Really Jason? You’re telling me that you believe that Jews target the innocent wilfully and purposely to achieve political goals and would even kill their fellow Jews to do so? Seriously? This merits some substantiation… a few links… something I can read for myself because as well read as I consider myself to be, the media must be hiding these incidents… the same media that would trumpet anything that makes the Jews look bad… cite some sources for this Jason, please… because I must be living in a hole to have missed all of this… sheez man, this is quite over the danged top… 2) You must belong to CAIR Jason… and if you don’t, they ought to consider recruiting you. Far too many Muslims like to target Christians because they’re Christians, and far more like to ignore the fact that their fellow Muslims are doing all that targeting. Jason, I know that you must know that there are faithful Christians who aren’t pacifists and who believe in concepts of just war. I know you know that. So your attempt to portray my thinking as unbiblical is an opinion, a shallow one, that is in reality yet another ad hominem. I should begin referring to you as Pastor rather than as Jason so that I might remind myself that I’m dialoguing with a shepherd for you seem to too often make me forget. I have no problem with your pacifism soas long as you’re not attempting to make me one. Frankly, I’ll defend your right to be one… to the death… but I’ll go down swinging while praying for God’s mercy and trusting in His grace. Loving your enemy is a fine pursuit up until the point that enemy is attempting to kill the neighbor that you’re also supposed to be loving. At that point, you have a freakin’ choice to make. Choose wisely. And you’ll have to cite for me this definition of savior in Scripture. Please. And then perhaps go back and partake of Revelation 19:11-15 and help me understand how you make that Jesus look like Gumby. Look Jason, you might be able to get away with this sort of thing while standing before a congregation in a hurry to get to the buffet line at Dennys but… well… I’m not buying into it, many iin Christendom don’t, and if you’d like to consign us all to hell, joing the fundamentalists and do so but understand that’s going to ruin that post-modern suit you’re wearing. I see absolutely no contradiction in stating that peace can be achieved via ways that people like you see as un-Christian (as in war) and the notion that, those who’ve adopted a belief system that denies Christ as who Christians see Him to be, have adopted a flawed and problematic belief system. You’ve put words in my mouth that I didn’t utter, you’ve done so wilfully, while, in response to Leslie for allegedly doing the same thing, chastising her for it. The folks I hang with call that something other than nuance. It’s a word that begins with the letter ‘h’ and ends with ‘ypocrisy”.
4. Waiting for Mike to answer tough questions is a futile endeavor. It won’t happen and if it does, I’m willing to send money to the charity of his choosing. Fat chance. Mike sees me as Satan. He’s pretty much said so at my place, calling me the only person in the entire world he has ever banned at his blog. It’s quite a loving thing to say in that post-modern sort of way. And I believe I have responded to your response so I’m not exactly sure what you’re waiting on me for.
5. I’ve already touched on this. I think I stand on firm ground when I claim that you’re not God. And given the firmness of that ground, I don’t think I need to buy into whether or not you decide I’m being Christian or not. But hey Jason… you do look good in that suit and looking good and sounding good goes a long way in this culture.
Rick -
1. I’ve made it clear that the comments Leslie misrepresented were not a contradiction. If you think they were, the burden is on you to show how. I would be happy to visit Gen 12 if you want to take this discussion back in that direction, but I thought you had already asserted that your support of Israel’s policies was not based on the Bible. Is it, or not?
2. I’ll try to answer all your questions from this bullet point with one statement: It is THE mission of the people of God to partner with God through the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit to proclaim and demonstrate the perfect peace of the future age here and now in the present evil age through the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Do you disagree? Or, to reiterate my question more directly, are you’re saying the way of Christ is not THE solution to the present problems of the world?
3. 1) As often? No, of course not. No single people group in history, to my knowledge, has suffered as much as the Jews. I’ve already said that, and I won’t grow weary of saying it. However, I’ve gone to great pains to be very clear that, in my opinion, if the Jews have engaged in any unjust violence then they are – according to their own moral tradition – as morally unjustified and guilty as if they had committed those acts as often as their enemies. That’s my position and you haven’t refuted it.
And yes, they have targeted innocent civilians, women, and children. There are many documented incidents of what would be called “terrorism” today from Israel’s history. One example is known as the Deir Yassin Massacre from April 9th, 1948. Here is a quote from the Israeli military leadership’s (the Hagannah) own official report:
“The conquest of the village was carried out with great cruelty. Whole families – women, old people, children – were killed. … Some of the prisoners moved to places of detention, including women and children, were murdered viciously by their captors.”
As I’m sure you know, this attack was carried out by the Irgun under the command of Menachim Begin, a future Prime Minister of Israel. With this extremist para-military gang, Begin conducted terrorist style attacks against local Palestinian groups as well as British military installations.
Another example would be the Massacre at Dawayma on October 29, 1948. Here is a quote from page 68-69 of the 1980 book, Dispossessed: The Ordeal of the Palestinians, by David Gilmour, where Zionist soldiers admitted:
“They killed some eighty to one hundred Arabs, women and children. The children were killed by smashing their skulls with clubs. In the village there remained Arab men and women who were put in the houses without food. Then the sappers came to blow up the houses.”
The salient point here is not only that Israel has engaged in acts of unjust violence, which establish guilt (however few they might be in comparison to the abominable Palestinian acts of terror committed in the last 50 years), but also that Israel attained it’s own Jewish State partially through acts of terrorism committed by a handful of para-military groups, many of the leaders of which – like Menachim Begin, Ariel Sharon, and David Ben-Gurion – went on to lead Israel as Prime Ministers. This is remarkable akin to the current situation, in reverse.
2) I’ve already unpacked my understanding of the gospel above (scroll up the to 10 point comments that you yourself said contained “voluminous” references to scripture). So I’ve made my position on the gospel clear AND shown how your support of militarism contradicts it, while you’ve offered no alternative argument. If you want to advance the dialogue you’ll have to offer your own counter-arguments to that narrative. If you don’t want to, you can just disagree, but that will necessarily end this part of the dialogue.
4. To my knowledge you haven’t responded. You just keep referring to Mike. I’ve said the lie is perpetuated by the intrinsic systemic evil of human institutions. What is your response to that?
5. That’s a strange response; I never said I was God(?), and you didn’t answered my question. All you’ve said is that you don’t think being a Christian excludes the ability to believe in warfare – fine, but you didn’t SHOW any support for your position from the teachings and example of Christ. So I’ll ask again, as a Christian, how do Christ’s teachings and example support your particular way of dealing with your enemies? Help me understand.
One more thing: you really need to learn what an ad hominim is. In the course of this dialogue you’ve consistently used it incorrectly.
Jason… I don’t have much time this morning but wanted to quickly respond.
You cite instances of Jews killing innocents during a time when the fledgling state of Israel was being birthed under battle? Keep in mind that the Arabs had, post the U.N. decision to set aside land for the Jews in 1947, declared war on them in response. In other words, the atrocities were committed in the midst of Israel’s quest to stand as a nation and defend what the U.N. had established as their own. Not condoning what took place but placing it in its proper context.
And very quickly, by your own definition of terrorism and my reading of the Old Testament, God is a terrorist.
Correct?
God knows I really don’t want to hop back into this never ending conversation (and chances of me responding after this are slim to none) but I must say:
“In other words, the atrocities were committed in the midst of Israel’s quest to stand as a nation and defend what the U.N. had established as their own. Not condoning what took place but placing it in its proper context.”
Yes, it’s important for things to be put in their proper context and it’s true that war (though sometimes necessary) is a tragedy and hell on earth for those involved (especially when it’s being fought in your own back yard – at least I imagine). But the ends don’t always justify the means. Even in war – character *does* matter. (it doesn’t mean that horrid situation won’t arise – they will. It’s war. BUT character, intentions of the heart, and the means to the end – those things *always* matter)
I’m personally no pacifist myself – and I don’t believe in “bringing a knife to a gun fight” as the old saying goes. I also realize that you said you don’t condone what happened – However, unless those women and children were strapped with explosives in order to kill their enemy, there’s no excuse for the Jews to have done what they did. Even if they *would* have been strapped down with explosives there would have been ways to deal with it. Things probably would have very well still resulted in many deaths but at least in *that* hypothetical case – the Jews wouldn’t have been responsible for the out come and would not have blood on their hands.
It is possible that if I read the whole story of those events (which I don’t see happening any time soon) – that I *may* come to a different conclusion – but it’s highly doubtful especially when children are brutally butchered in the way as described. That’s just inexcusable. Forgivable by God if truly repentant, of course, but inexcusable actions non the less.
Rick -
It should be obvious that others would say you “cite instances of Jews Palestinians killing innocents during a time when the fledgling state of Israel Palestine is being birthed under battle.” My point is not that one side is more guilty than the other, it is that both side are guilty. Both sides see themselves in battle. Both sides claim right to the land. Both sides have disregarded collateral damage, and, yes, both sides have targeted women and children. You asked for citations and I’ve given them.
Have I defined terrorism? (Maybe we should do so since we’ve both used the term). Why would you say God is a terrorist?
Julie - I had to chuckle at the thought of you being a pacifist : )
So Jason… Israel, in your eyes, is a terrorist nation… as would be the United States because of our actions during WWII against Germany and Japan…
Is this what you’re saying?
And no, I’m not saying God is a terrorist… you apparently are… or my deductive reasoning is flawed, which is possible…
Did God not command the Jews to slaughter men, women and children in the OT? And given your criteria on this thread defining terroristic acts, doesn’t this make God a terrorist?
“I had to chuckle at the thought of you being a pacifist : )”
LOL! I’m not sure HOW to take that!:-)
Rick -
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. Yes, I knew you were suggesting it was me making that insinuation and I didn’t mean to turn that insinuation back on you. I was just asking why.
I can answer your question later when I have more time, but – as usual for this dialogue – it’s a big can of worms, so we should probably make this #6.
Julie - I meant in all sincere affection : )
Jason, not much time tonight so apologies for the brevity.
1. I continue to hold that my support for Israel has more to do with shared values and common enemies than anything else but I think it’s key to understand that our shared values come from our biblical kinship. So I see no contradiction. Now… will you answer my question on the Genesis 12:2-3 reference?
2. I think it’s the mission of God’s people to proclaim the hope that exists only in the resurrection, in the truth represented by the divinity of Jesus Christ, in the love expressed by Christ’s salvific work and to live in tune with God’s Holy Spirit so that we may better understand and do the will of God the Father. Do you agree?
3. It’s interesting that of the two incidentgs cited, there’s plenty out there in cyberland that disputes or refutes one of them (Der Yassin) and I can’t find anything on the other (Dawayma) as to refutations but I find plenty references to sites that also tell of how the holocaust has been exaggerated. Seems susipicious. The conservative blogosphere has covered widely those instances of Palestinian productions that are fake and that are purposed in scoring propaganda points (just google Pallywood and I think you’ll see what I’m talking about). All that to say that your listing of these incidents in a manner that would suggest they are completely true or have not been disputed or refuted in some way is less than honest and problematic. 2) I think you completely dodged some of my questions and points… but that’s fine… that kind of dodging is your choice… and to say I support militarism (whatever that is) and to ignore that I’ve stated war should be avoided where possible but that there are instances where there are valid reasons to engage does two things. First, you completely ignore the voluminous writings by people much smarter than I on just war theory and second, it borders on dishonesty to do so.
4. I think the lie is propagating the notion that Jews are propogating the big lie. And I think that once again you’re playing dodgeball. Your statement as to human institutions is too vague. In fact I’d go farther and say that it best represents a generalization and a stereotype… something you’re pretty quick to chastise me for when I use terms like liberal or conservative. Yet another contradiction.
5. Jesus stated that there would be wars and rumors of wars and that these things must happen. Not an endorsement by any stretch of warfare but neither does it help your suggestion that it’s divinely verbotten. I think the Old Testament has clearly not only endorsed war but uncomfortably references God Himself commanding it. The same God who inspired New Testament authors to refer to Christ being one with the Father and as the Word of God, was there in the beginning. So, unless you’re one who’s going to refute or deny this in some way, it would seem that your suggestion that only your perspective is the Godly perspective is one that seems more than a little flawed… or in the least, less than logical.
Julie,
There’s little I disagree with as to your comments… I simply think it hard to suggest that these events qualify as the substantiation needed to claim that Israel is a terrorist nation on a par with the radical Muslims that rule the Palestinians today and have ruled them for a very long time.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Rick -
1. That’s a fair answer. It brings up your “shared values” point, which we should probably get around to sooner or later. I’ll answer your Gen 12 question below in #6.
To recap the original discussion on this point, you thought I was arguing that Zionism was the only reason for Christian support of Israel. I clarified that I knew it was not the only reason, but that it was significant, particularly in Evangelical circles. You stated that your background was mostly mainline, and I agreed that mainline traditions are less inclined to Zionism. At this point I don’t think there is a real disagreement here, expect perhaps where our own experiences skew differently, and there’s no point in arguing that. So I propose we close down this point, unless you think there’s some unfinished business here.
2. There’s much to commend in your statement, but I only agree in part. I maintain that an indispensable component of the Christian mission is to not only proclaim (which you’ve included), but to demonstrate the future age to come in this present evil age (which you’ve omitted). The people of God are to be a sign, a foretaste, and the means of the fulfilled kingdom; we are not to merely wait for it with Christ’s second coming. This is accomplished by obedience to Christ’s teachings and is evidenced most conspicuously as an obliteration of all ethnic and religious boundaries. It’s these dimensions – demonstrating a foretaste of the future, through the radically subversive and sacrificial teachings of Christ, and manifested through ethnic and political unity – that your definition seems to be lacking, or at least are not explicitly present.
But you didn’t answer the question I’ve asked twice, and now ask again: Are you saying that the way of Christ is not THE solution to the present problems facing the world?
3. 1) I’m not going to play “he said, she said.” All such incidents are disputed in all conflicts, and by all people. However, both incidents are documented – one by the Haganah – and I’ve given the citations.
I don’t give credence to any person or organization that downplayed the holocaust, so please don’t attempt to link me with such people. Also, I don’t doubt the Palestinians have lied. Killing and lying go hand in hand. As I’ve said many times, both sides are guilty of unjust violence – and now I’ve demonstrated it. If you have authoritative sources that deny these incidents I would be eager to see them. It would be nice to be proven wrong about such horrific things. But you and I both know that’s not likely because it’s openly known that groups like the Irgun openly advocated such tactics and were sharply critical of the more moderate stance of other Israeli groups at the time. Moreover, sadly, these aren’t the only incidents I could cite. So, unless you have a smoking gun that the rest of the world has overlooked, I can confidently say I have demonstrated Israel’s guilt.
Moreover, through your recent comments to Julie you continue to be slow to catch on to the nuances of my arguments. As I’ve repeatedly stated I’m not claiming Israel’s unjust acts are “on par” with the Palestinians. I’m not appealing to volume or frequency. I’m saying that any guilt equals total guilt, a position that is in harmony with the Jews own moral law. I can understand why you won’t argue with this position, since doing so would put you uncomfortably in contention with your own faith, but please acknowledge that you understand the difference and stop debating with a position I’m not advocating.
2) I did ignore many of your questions and points because they weren’t pertinent, but…I don’t belong to CAIR. I’ve never even heard of them (you’ll have to understand this isn’t my “issue” really – in fact, I’ve never dialogue or debated about this topic before). Also, saying you’re wrong about your theology isn’t an ad hominem. As I mentioned before, you clearly don’t now what that means. Let me help you out:
a) Saying you’re wrong isn’t an ad hominem.
b) Saying you’re slow isn’t an ad hominem (though, it might be an insult)
c) Saying you’re wrong because you’re slow IS an ad hominem
- I’ve said you’re wrong and given reasons why (which you haven’t refuted)
- I’ve said you’re slow, which is irrefutable…I just don’t know if it’s by intention or impairment. I suspect the former.
- I’ve never once said you’re wrong because you’re slow (or white, or conservative, or black, or liberal, or whatever else you might be that some might find objectionable).
So, just because lots of Christians aren’t pacifists doesn’t mean I’m wrong. That’s not a valid argument. All I’m trying to do is reconcile your claim to be a Christian with your understanding of what it means to solve the problems of the middle east (namely, justifying unjust uses of force). And of course I know many Christians aren’t pacifists. I think they’re wrong and I’ve clearly stated why (and, actually, I’ve said early on that I’m not a “strong” pacifist, explicitly leaving room for the defense of weaker people, another nuance you’ve either missed or ignored). Your reference to being willing to defend a “neighbor” in need is interesting, because Jesus’ teachings concerning “neighbors” is that we’re to defend the weakest and neediest regardless of a lack of common religion, values, or ethnicity (Lk 10:25-37). Yet you obviously consider Israel to be your “neighbor,” not the Palestinians – even though the Palestinians are clearly the ones suffering under more difficult and oppressive conditions. The Rev 11 question belongs in another section.
4. No dodgeball, I can be a little more specific. I think some in Israel spread that lie. I think some on the U.S. spread that lie. I think Western Media spreads that lie. I think some Western Christians spread that lie. I think it’s a lie that all those people believe.
5. Yes, Jesus said that there would be “wars and rumors of wars” in Matt 24. But can you explain how that passage, faithfully interpreted according to the context, is a teaching that Christians should support war?
Let me save you the time: you can’t. It teaches that at the end of the age there will be great war and trouble but that the disciples shouldn’t be alarmed, but instead preach the gospel and be ready to die for the preaching of the gospel. You’ve completely missed Jesus most famous, and most extensive teachings regarding the way we should live: Matt 5-7. Can you show me how Jesus ethical teachings support your position in support of Israel’s policies or war in general?
Or, let me narrow it down for you. If, as you say, Radical Islamists are your “enemies,” what do Jesus and Paul teach us to do with our enemies?
6. The promises made to Abraham in Gen 12 (and Gen 15) are inherited by the offspring of Abraham, not the modern nation-State of Israel.
Jason, again I have little time in the mornings but… here’s a quick response to something I’m not understanding.
On the one hand, you want to hold the nation state of Israel accountable to the Torah and state that because they’ve broken the law, they must repent and seek reconciliation.
And yet you dismiss Genesis 12:2-3 because you state the promise does not apply to the nation state of Israel.
Huh?
Rick
You’re confusing two different subjects, one is the principle of guilt and the other concerns who inherits the promises made to Abraham. The principle of guilt applies to everyone, not just Israel. I’ve always said this (by also applying it to Palestinians). But, it’s an irony that I have to keep articulating this principle to a Christian in a conversation about Israel. That’s why I keep pointing out this irony to you by saying that it is best articulated in the Torah. The promises made to Abraham do not apply to everyone, only to the offspring of Abraham.
I now have time to respond at length.
1. I’m ok with closing down the point but I need you to address the Genesis 12:2-3 scripture in more detail at some point.
2. I think I have answered the question but because you disagree with my premise, you’re ignoring it. It’s something you do ad nauseum.
The way of Christ as THE solution to present problems assumes that all will follow that way, even those who don’t believe it’s a way or it isn’t really a solution. Do you not see the dichotomy here (and I thought I was the slow one)? It’s key to our disagreement… theologically, politically, etc.
3. 1) You have to deal with the contradiction of holding the nation of Israel to a moral law and your refusal to grant that Genesis 12:2-3 applies to that nation. An absolutely key problem to this entire discussion.
3. 2) An ad hominem involves resorting to name calling rather than dealing with an argument. If you focus on my slowness rather than answer my argument, you’re engaging in an ad hominem. Period. I think we’ll agree on that definition… or certainly we should… So you ignore points I’m making because you see them to be irrelevant (you said so yourself)… and you also make reference to my slowness… so I’m inferring/concluding that it’s an ad hominem. But then again, I’m slow. 
When you say that the Palestinians are clearly the ones suffering under more difficult and oppressive conditions, you ignore that they themselves are largely responsible. And that again is a key point. The oppressive conditions under which they live is a consequence of their continued insistence that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist and their rocket attacks/suicide attacks that results and the ideology that forms the basis for that thought. You can’t make an argument based on a premise that is flawed in its construction. And yet that’s what you keep doing. Yet I’m the one that’s slow.
4. Very cool. You and I now agree. Key point is you used the word some. If Mike had stated that some are propagating a big lie, I wouldn’t be hanging out on your blog. He didn’t. Again, this is key. And what obviously complicates this is that in fact, some Palestinians are indeed dangerous. Fatally (to innocents in Israel) so. And that’s ignored while Israel solely is seen to be the roadblock to solving this problem. It’s truly ridiculous.
5. I appreciate you attempting to save me the time by forcing me to agree with your premises… let me save us all time by stating unequivocally that it ain’t happening that way. Let me also state that I believe the beatitudes served dual purposes… one was to establish the new law in the sense that he was replacing the old covenant with a new covenant… but two, and more importantly, is that He was setting the bar even higher and establishing our need for a Savior. The verse that sticks out for me is Matt 5:48. Can we truly be perfect as God the Father is perfect? I’m being serious… can we? My practical and experiental suggestion is that the answer is no. Should we strive to be? Sure… but in a fallen world, it is my opinion that we’ll never get there. This reminds me of Luther’s call to sin boldly. You Jason may see my theology or perspective as unChristian and thus sinful, and perhaps it is, I’ll leave that up to God, but I’m not alone in this and those that stand with me are no where near as slow as I so I think I stand with people who, in your view, can match your intellect but simply disagree. As to your final question in this section… rather than this be something that I answer with the purpose to persuade you to change your mind or with your purpose to make me look slower than I really I am, I’d rather simply point you in the direction of the Catholic perspective on Just War theory. If you then want to argue how unscriptural Roman Catholics are while understanding that just war theory is taught in ethics classes in Protestant seminaries across the globe, knock yourself out. Fair enough?
6. I’ve already alluded to this… I think you owe us an explanation as to how you can hold the nation state of Israel accountable for breaking the Tora but you can limit the applicability of Gen. 12 (and Gen. 15) to just the offspring of Abraham.
Rick -
2. Can you show me how Christ’s way is presented in the New Testament as a solution that will only work if all people believe? It sounds like you’re saying that there are (at least) two acceptable Christian solutions for the world a) The gospel that works for those who believe, and b) the way of the world which works for those who don’t believe. That is indeed a dichotomy, but I say it is false. Jesus and the epistle writers all make quite explicit the fact that NOT all will believe, and yet, despite that fact, Christ’s way remains the only solution Christians are free to offer the world, and, indeed, the only real solution at all.
3. What faulty premise? As I’ve continually said, the Palestinians are guilty as well. The question at hand in this point has been “who is more guilty?” I say both are equally guilty and I’ve demonstrated it by a) Asserting that to be guilty of any injustice is to be guilty, period, and b) by demonstrating Israel’s guilt through specific citations of unjust violence.
You have yet to make an argument against either point.
4. I’m glad we agree about the “lie.” I think Mike will be pleasantly surprised to hear that you agree that some Israeli’s, some Americans, and some Christians perpetuate this lie.
5. So, your position on Christ’s teachings is that he created a new law that couldn’t be obeyed?
I’m familiar with Just War theory. I disagree with it – although my position on war is not so simple as you might assume – but that is not the subject of this point. You don’t get to let other people make your argument for you in a discussion. The questions was, what do Jesus and Paul teach Christians to do with their enemies?
Please answer the question.
6. I’ve already given that explanation in two parts. The burden is now on you to refute those.
I truly think that trickery and purposeful obtuseness is now in play.
2. You seem to be twisting my intentions Jason. Not sure why you’d do that. I’ll assume I’m simply communicating poorly. My point is, I think, pretty simple. It is my belief that peace will be achieved perfectly when Christ returns. It is your belief, apparently, that we can achieve perfect peace by following the way of Christ and that it can be achieved before He returns again. I’d like to think you’re right. But history proves you’re wrong. Evil will be sticking around until Christ vanquishes it at the end of the age. Once every knee has bowed to Christ’s kingship, perfect peace will arrive. You’re suggesting this will happen prior to His coming again. I’m suggesting otherwise. I really can’t make it any clearer than that.
3. Given this perspective, every nation is an unjust one and if you hold to this view, please simply say so and we can shut this point down too since that’s a perspective we’ll never agree on. Why do you continue to ignore my questions as to how in your view Genesis12:2-3 cannot be applied to the nation state of Israel while the Torah can?
4. Again, you’re twisting my words and if not my words, certainly my intent. I’ll however again allow that I’m a crappy communicator. I’ll try again. Mike was clearly suggesting that Jews were propagating the big lie that all Palestinians are dangerous. Palestinians, as represented by their political leadership and that leadership’s history, are dangerous. They hold to the belief that Israel has no right to exist and they send rockets and suicide bombers into Israel as a consequence of that belief. Are all Palestinians dangerous? No. And I believe Israel understands that but their actions are driven by the fact that Palestinian leadership and those who’ve bought into the ideology they’ve adopted are indeed dangerous. The big lie is to suggest otherwise. Mike is propagating a big lie about “the big lie”.
5. My position is that Christ has established, as expressed in Matt 5 through 7, a new law that can’t be perfectly followed. If you know of someone who has done so since that establishment, please let know who and where he or she is (or was). I’d like to meet them (or read more about them). It is also my position that Matthew 5 through 7 affirms our need for a Savior, someone who will save us from our sin, because we will, no matter how hard we try, sin again.
Who says you can’t have other people make arguments for you in a discussion? An absolutely absurd statement. And arrogant. You made mention of my alleged militarism. I countered with the notion that at times, militarism is just and that this position has been held by much brighter people than I. You counter with absurdity. If absurdity is the goal of this discussion, consider yourself the victor.
Sorry Rick, I forgot #6 – which goes to the Gen 12 question. I’ve added it above. Please add your response and I’ll reply to all these points in full.
I think I get it… I missed youre reply that expounded on 6. (Beginning with “You’re confusing…”.
So that we’re on the same page, you’re stating that the people of the nation state of Israel and the offspring of Abraham are two different people groups… is that correct? If so, perhaps you could expound on that point.
Jason,
Leslie has today come across these relevant verses that perhaps corrects us both… perhaps not… yet I do think them worthy of our time.
I’m hoping Leslie will join us and weigh in as to their relevance.
Rick -
I just wanted to let you know that its a very busy weekend for me with school, work, and church, so I won’t have the time to sit and properly respond until probably Monday night.
Thanks.
*Bump*
Rick -
Your “Bump” comment cracked me up….takes me back to the days of discussion forums : )
I have to apologize for dropping the ball on this discussion. I got swamped with work and school and a few more recent posts on this site. I promise I’ll respond this week to the latest points.
Take your time Jason… though I do believe we hold the keys to Middle East peace…
Please be polite. You can use these HTML tags: STRONG, A, BLOCKQUOTE, CODE
"Tea. Earl Grey. Hot."
Copyright © 2009. All rights reserved.
RSS Feed. Wordpress theme by Rodrigo Galindez. Customized by Jason Coker.
“The greatest way to respond to the injustices done against Jews is to stand against injustices committed against anyone, anywhere.”
That is an awesome statement and I would even dare say – it’s among the truest words ever spoken.
“What are your thoughts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?”
Other than the fact that it’s been going on longer than life itself? (ok, so that’s an exaggeration but still….)
1) We are all human beings (obviously) no matter where we come from. No matter our cultural background, etc….
2) We all live in this world of sin brought on by our disobedience to God.
3) Because of the above, we are all affected and *infected* by sin. It runs through our veins. It’s apart of our DNA. There is no escaping it.
(But enough with the “duh” factor)
With all that being said – both the Jews/children of Israel and the Palestinians have made their share of mistakes and have fallen into sin.
There is no mistake that Gods promise AND covenant is indeed with the Jewish people/children of Israel. They are His chosen people and the land of Israel does belong to them because of God’s covenant to them. However, just like all other human beings – the Jews are not above nor without sin (like I stated above). When they do wrong – it must be pointed out and must be condemned. However, as Christians – I believe it is our duty to stand with God’s chosen for they are our brothers and sisters.
Again, that doesn’t mean the children of Israel are above sin and disobedience towards God (exhibit “A”….The Bible). Also, by NO means *does* that mean we should give a cold shoulder to the Palestinians. We need to show love and compassion to all – but again – I believe our “allegiance” (so to speak) should be with God’s chosen ones.