← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel

Christian Zionism fuels Israeli divestment push

Thread ID: 17408 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2005-03-20

Wayback Archive

Centinel [OP]

2005-03-20 01:13 | User Profile

From The Jewish Week: [url]http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=10597[/url]

**Israel Caught In Sanctions Crossfire

Divestment push seen as price for support of Evangelicals.**

James D. Besser - Washington Correspondent March 4, 2005

The snowballing move by main-line Protestant churches to punish Israel with economic sanctions may be one of the prices the Jewish state is paying for the growing and visible support of Evangelical Christians in this country.

That ominous link emerged this week in conversations with interfaith leaders and in research by a top political scientist, as Jewish officials tried to solve the biggest puzzle in the divestment controversy: Why is the push happening now, just as the Middle East seems poised for a new peace process?

“My personal belief is that [divestment] is almost entirely rooted in this,” said James Hutchins, an activist in the United Church of Christ who is opposed to the divestment crusade touched off with a vote last summer by the Presbyterian Church (USA).

More recently, UCC leaders signaled they were considering a divestment resolution, and last week the World Council of Churches recommended that members consider divestment.

“So much of this activity, especially in the United Church of Christ, is rooted in this anger at the boogeyman of the right-wing Christians,” Hutchins said.

John Green, a University of Akron political scientist who studies the religious right, said the main-line Protestants “really dislike conservative Evangelicals — and their support for Israel is an easy target. Also, there is in many of these circles a deep antipathy to Bush and that carries over into Israel as well.”

Jewish analysts say Israel has been caught in a crossfire resulting from an internal Christian dispute that is both political, with a focus on a big power shift between the two groups in recent years, and theological, with roots going back hundreds of years.

Few Jewish groups are willing to forego the support of the powerful Evangelicals, but more and more Jewish leaders say the divestment disaster is one consequence of their pro-Israel ardor.

“We’re grateful for the support the Evangelical community has given to Israel, but it comes with a price,” said Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, interreligious affairs director for the Anti-Defamation League. “We have benefited from that political support because we’re not getting it elsewhere, especially in the main-line Protestant community.

“But one of the costs is divestment,” he said.

Jewish leaders caution against seeing the divestment push as one-dimensional. The actions of groups like the Presbyterians, they say, stem from a tangle of factors, including the traditional Christian support for the weak, the success of Palestinian Christians in portraying themselves as victims of almost biblical proportions and old-fashioned anti-Semitism.

But many analysts have been baffled by the timing of the Presbyterian action that opened the divestment floodgates, and which Jewish leaders fear will give new impetus to divestment drives on college campuses and in several cities known for liberal activism.

The Presbyterians began their divestment move just as Israel and the Palestinians were moving toward a renewed peace effort and as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accelerated his plan for withdrawal from Gaza.

One answer, some Jewish leaders believe, is political animosity between the mainline Protestants and their adversaries on the Christian right.

The main-line Presbyterians — once the nation’s political elite, a dominating force in politics — “have lost political capital, so now what they’re going after is the sworn enemies who have usurped their political role,” said Rabbi Bretton-Granatoor.

And they’re attacking those seen as aligned with their Christian foes, including Israel and its supporters.

Another Jewish activist involved in the divestment fight said “the Presbyterians and others feel like they’re losing big time. They see the Evangelicals as backward and antithetical to their humanistic values. And more and more, they believe Israel is allied with these forces of darkness. The fact that the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Tom DeLays are strident supporters of Israeli nationalists and settlers heaps fuel on the fires.”

The past four years — with a president who is officially a main-line Protestant but regards the religious right as his base and with Congress firmly in the hands of Christian conservatives — have been particularly hard on the main-line leadership.

“They’re running scared, and they’re striking out against every target they can find, including us,” this activist said.

Kenneth Goldstein, a University of Wisconsin political scientist, recently studied a small group of Christians in Los Angeles for the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. Although he stressed his results were just preliminary, he said anger at the religious right and the perceived connection to pro-Israel activism was “one factor” in the intensifying divestment effort.

His research showed “a clear, deep dislike of Evangelical Christians and fundamentalists among the subgroup of people I talked to. And that seemed, I stress ‘seemed,’ tied into their problems with Israel. When they talked about ‘Christian Zionists,’ their voices dripped with disdain.”

In fact, the battle against Christian Zionists — who believe, as do Orthodox Jews, that God gave the land of Israel to the Jews — has been a parallel theme to the divestment push. The same Presbyterian meeting that started the divestment wheels turning also passed a resolution stating that “Christian Zionism does not represent the majority of American Christians and the faith of the Presbyterian Church (USA),” Goldstein said.

And that ties the divestment battle to centuries-old divisions over theology, prophecy and biblical interpretation.

The Presbyterians define Christian Zionism as “the predominantly American movement that believes that the modern state of Israel is the catalyst for the end of times, the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and the return of Jesus with final judgment,” according to a recent statement by church leaders. “This dispensationalist view of the Bible looks forward to the second coming, an event only possible when the state of Israel reclaims its ancient borders with an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.”

In today’s world, the statement continues, Christian Zionists “provide unqualified support for any action toward this end, neglecting the cries for justice from Palestinians and others who would pay the price for this unilateral move.”

The church insists the term “does not refer in a generic way to ‘Christians who support the state of Israel.’ ”

But Zionism itself has become a pejorative among main-line groups, Goldstein said. The term has been tainted by the perceived connection to the prophetic theology of the conservatives and a harsh brand of Middle East politics in today’s world that these groups abhor.

“There is support for the Jewish state” among the Presbyterians, he said, “but Zionism has become a bad word.”

These theological wars have been going since long before there was a State of Israel, but have taken on a sharp new edge now that the conservative Christians are so vocal in the debate over Mideast policy, said Rabbi Eric Polokoff of B’nai Israel Synagogue in Southbury, Mass.

Rabbi Polokoff wrote his Yale doctoral dissertation on the history of Christian Zionism and conflicts within the church over it.

The theology of “premillennialism,” which became very popular in the 19th century, holds that the Jewish people “have to return to Israel in order for the Christian eschatological schemes to succeed,” he said. “That put the Jewish people and the future of a Jewish political entity right in the middle of the Christian idea of redemption.”

And it put Israel and the Jews in the crossfire in a major theological battle over biblical interpretation, as well as politics.

“This is part of the cultural war between liberal and conservative Christians,” Rabbi Polokoff said. “You can’t understand divestment now, at the very moment when there’s talk of Israeli accommodation, unless it’s understood in this realm.”

madrussian

2005-03-20 02:06 | User Profile

Something I've been talking for a long time -- the need for excommunicating the judaizing heretics -- may be finally happening. It's healthy to reject the rotten :thumbsup:

albion

2005-03-20 02:13 | User Profile

We Hold These Truths: [url="http://www.whtt.org/"][color=#0000ff]http://www.whtt.org/[/color][/url]

WHY SOME CHRISTIANS ENABLE THE NEO-CRUSADE AND OTHERS OPPOSE:PART 1 By Charles E. Carlson

Judaized-Christian churches focus on praising Jesus and accepting his “free” favors of eternal life, while deemphasizing the commitment to follow Christ. Mainline or traditional churches are showing a marked tendency to follow the financially successful example of evangelical competitors, while still trying to preach the difficult doctrine of following Christ toward the “strait gate.” Mainline churches are losing the battle in the marketplace, because they do not sufficiently understand why their competitors for men’s minds act as they do. If they understood the Judaized-Christian church in light of its history and teaching, they would not mirror it; they would renounce its heresy and trust in God to reward them for following Him.

Judaized-Christianity looks ever more like a political phenomenon with a religious face.* This well-defined term in preferable to the popular, idiomatic terms “Christian Right” and “Christian-Zionist,” formerly called “pre-millennialism,” “evangelical,” or “dispensationalist.” Whatever you choose to call these people ( this author is a qualified long term alumnus) they have integrated secular Zionism into their religion. Not only do they embrace it as part of their belief system, they wear it as a banner of righteousness. In the November elections, the Judaized-Christians mandated “war” in the Mideast by an overwhelming majority of about Six to four by choosing the one candidate who promised war. Neo- Crusade is a more descriptive word than “war” because each one is an annihilation of more or less helpless peoples whose leader owns or does something our leaders covet or resent.

I recently listened to a sermon in a Lutheran (ELCA) Church. The traditional message was devoutly given, with a subtle admonition that each must be a follower of Christ to remain with him. But the format of the service was modern, employing the musical informality of the Judaized Christian movement. A guitarist and several harmonizers led a chorus projected by Power Point. The service mirrored those in thousands of Judaized-Christian churches, many of which now accept the “Christian Zionist” label.

I am told by members the ELCA, not only in this church, but nationwide, has adopted, to some degree, the format of the Judaized- Christian churches in order to compete, while attempting to retain its more traditional view of scripture, at least on this issue. Many denominations are attempting to look like the Judaized Christians without actually being like them.

The question is: has all of Christendom abandoned its traditional faith in Christ to put on the trappings of Judaization? The answer is clearly no. Many traditional churches know that what they see happening in the marketplace is compromising Christianity. But they do not have the tools or the courage to compete against it, and they tend to say very little. Project Strait Gate’s effort is to provide the tools. God must provide the courage it takes to be different.

IS THE STATE OF ISRAEL THE FULFILLMENT OF BIBLICAL PROPHESY? It can be generally stated, with a few exceptions, that mainline clergy members do not support the Judaized Christian premise that the present day State of Israel is the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy.
They know it is biblical heresy to say so, and it is destructive. Jesus alone is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesy, and so every Christ follower should proclaim.

The Judaized-Christian notion that Israel is the fulfillment comes from accepting the World Zionist claim that “God gave us this land.”
It is the issue around which all war in the Mideast pivots. Without the assumption that Israel has a God-given claim to Arab-owned lands, there would be no reason for conflict in the Mideast. Israel would have to settle with its neighbors or admit to the world that it is a pariah and renegade. God’s alleged gift to them is Israel’s sole excuse for imprisoning its neighbors. Therefore, we must continually remind ourselves and seek the truth about the source of this claim, if we are to make any sense of the Mideast. America’s churches fail to do this.

Perhaps half the leaders of America’s churches accept Israel’s self- serving claim for “scriptural” reasons. These we call the Judaized churches, and the Mormons can be included with the Southern Baptists. Others, Mainline Protestants, Orthodox and Catholic, do not accept Israel’s claim of God-given rights to Arab lands on corrupted scriptural grounds, but many members do. Most of those who oppose, unfortunately, do not make an issue of it.

NON-BIBLICAL BASIS OF ISRAEL’S CLAIM Israel bases its claim to Arab lands on the Old Testament. No New Testament verses are mentioned, because Israel does not even acknowledge that Jesus ever existed; and if they do, they have nothing good to say about Him. The principal relevant verses are found in the first book of their Torah, Genesis, Chapter 12:1-3, where God makes a promise to a man named Abram, whose great grandson many years later is said to be called “Israel.”

“[2] And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shall be a blessing.”

“[3] And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee. And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12:3, King James Version

Virtually all Judaized Christians interpret these two verses as a promise of Land to anyone who calls themselves an Israeli. It is a sort of last will and testament for perpetual ownership of what amounts to most of the Mideast. It is no surprise that most Israeli’s agree.

Judaized Christians accept the Israel’s land rights based on interpretive footnotes found in the Scofield Reference Bible and others, including the NIV Study Bible and the John McArthur Study Bible. Hundred of commentaries and teaching tools affirm the Israeli favorable view, using a variety of mechanisms of logic.

The Scofield notes, written in 1967, declare that the above verses mean: “(2) God made an unconditional promise of blessings through Abram's seed (a) to the nation of Israel to inherit a specific territory forever.” (Scofield Reference Bible, 1967, page 19)

The fanatically pro-Zionist Scofield book goes so far as to state that: “all Jews are natural descendants of Abraham” (page1138, note to John 8:37)

The Lutherans would be just as logical if they claimed that they are all natural descendants of Martin Luther. These bizarre interpretations are among the reasons we believe the World Zionist Movement, and not Cyrus I. Scofield, probably edited his book.*

THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, in a press release carried in Haaretz, Israel, on February 23, 2005, stated “The main global body uniting non-Catholic Christians, encouraged members Tuesday to sell off investments in companies profiting from Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.” (Most Judaized Christian churches are not member of the WCC)

Not one word can be found anywhere in the New Testament that would justify taking the life of anyone, and killing those thousands of miles away who are not a threat should be unthinkable for one who calls himself by Jesus name. Nor is there anything in Jesus’ words that would ever justify a follower of Christ to fund those who kill their neighbors and their neighbors’ children, as Israeli solders and squatters do every day.

PART II WILL DIG DEEPER into the differences among Mainline, Orthodox, Judaized Christians and Catholics on the issue of financing Israel’s occupation and abuse of its neighbors. SUBSCRIBERS WILL RECEIVE IT MONDAY

We Hold These Truths challenges all churches on the basic question of the preservation of human life. We welcome the opportunity to make presentations at churches, schools, and before the media. Project Strait Gate confronts churches over the Internet and in the street.
Both are important missions where battle can be won. You can help:

You can contribute work to our mission. You can forward this letter to others. You can buy books and tapes from We Hold These Truths. You can from a Project Strait Gate Vigil team in your community. *You can contribute to Strait Gate Ministries.

Endnotes: “Judaizer.” Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language 1828, “One who conforms to the religious doctrine and rites of the Jews.” Webster refers to the book of Galatians, found many time in NIV Study Bible, Galatians 3, 5 and Hebrews 1.

WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES CALLS FOR DIVESTMENT FROM ISRAEL [url="http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?rpr/050222Wo.htm"][color=#800080]http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?rpr/050222Wo.htm[/color][/url]

albion

2005-03-20 02:16 | User Profile

PART 2: WHY SOME CHRISTIANS ENABLE THE NEO-CRUSADE AND OTHERS OPPOSE: By Charles E. Carlson

Every follower of Christ must protest the callousness of celebrity Judaized Christian leaders toward the Arab people and Islam in general; we must object to the policy of the gradual liquidation of the Palestinians, which is justified by Israel, supported by our dollars from Washington, and enabled by the support of churchmen popularly called the "Christian Right." If your church is one that is silent, we ask you to learn and protest its enabling silence.

There is no Christian basis for racism in church. Jesus Christ spoke not one word that can in any way be interpreted to support the killing and taking of one people's land by another. Judaized Christian laymen need to follow Jesus and not their celebrity leaders. We must first object from inside the church, knowing we may be heard. We must then leave the church without hesitation and without a look back, as Christ told his disciples to do when they were rejected. Our churches support "public policy" toward Israel, which can be summarized as the gradual liquidation of the Palestinian people, and serial wars against other tribes. It is impossible to be both a follower of Christ to be a party to this.

We must also recognize that "war" is and has been an economic policy of our country for two generations. War is whispered to be good business, and indeed it is for a few, including politicians, but is a sin for those who call themselves by Christ's name. God's people are expected to place a higher standard on life than we can expect from politicians. Mr. Bush is exposing, by his example, Judaized Christianity and its selfishness and callousness toward life.

Judaized Christian churches have adopted de facto, a racist theology that endorses a favored, or "chosen people." So-called Christian leaders have and are willing and ready to condemn a not-favored tribe to death. The unfavored tribe is any tribe that is at odds with political Israel, including the tribes of Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Judaized Christianity is an American spawning. If those who are committing the sin of supporting genocidal "wars" understand that they have nothing to gain and everything to lose, they will stop. Judaized Christians are numerous and are part of a huge communication network. It is part of the media and partly entertainment business. It may influence fully half of the American population. Anyone who doubts this need only to watch TBN television for a few hours of Benny Hinn and John Hagee, and count the evangelical churches in your phone book.

THE ABUSE OF SCRIPTURE Israel bases its claim to Arab lands on the Christian version of the Old Testament. Genesis, Chapter 12:1-3, is its argument and is supposedly similar to the Torah. God makes a promise to a man named Abram, whose grandson was called "Israel." Here, to quote from the King James Version, is the verse that is the subject of which may be the most monstrous distortion of Scripture in the modern history of Christianity:

"(1) Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee; [2] And I will make of thee a great nation,"......"

The passage seems plain enough; God orders Abram go out and break new ground, promising that He, God, will lead him, protect him, give him a big family, and in the next verse, God promises Abram that he will have an undisclosed place in history that men will find to be a universal blessing.

"(3) And in thee all the nations of the earth will be blessed" (King James Version).

This blessing is not explained, but the one and only traditional view of this bit of Old Testament history is that from Abraham's family will come the Messiah, Christ the Lord. This is the significance of Abraham in Christian history.

Similarly, composer Frederick Handel found the words for his lyrics of the wonderful oratorio, Messiah, in the Old Testament book of Isaiah, of interest to followers of Christ because it is a prophesy of Christ, the Messiah's coming. .

The present-day state of Israel's political leaders plucked the land argument, not from the footnotes of the Judaized Christians' contrived study bible; this handy but faulted land deed was planted there a generation earlier by those who paid or otherwise influenced a convicted, professional forger named Cyrus I Scofield.

Today's Zionists interpret these few words to Abram as a promise of a land grant to the state of Israel, which did not exist until 3000 years after the "promise." To them, it is a sort of last will-and-testament for perpetual ownership of what amounts to be most of the Middle East. This blood-related gift assumes all Israelis are Abraham's physical heirs. There is no proof of this, but Oxford Press actually wrote this in the Scofield Bible footnotes after Scofield's death. There is not a strand of Abraham's DNA connecting Prime Minister Sharon, or any other Israeli, to anyone in the Bible.

But even if Ariel Sharon could prove his DNA matches Abraham's to the nub, so what? Land is not conferred by lineage without a deed. Arab lands, those that have value, have land titles and records of occupancy. Arabs have deeds. Most Israelis I've met said, as Ariel Sharon says, "God gave it to us," not caring in the least if one believes them, because they do not believe it themselves.

Judaized Christians in the US also proudly support Israeli racist hate groups operating both in the US and Israel. Some of these organizations are too radical even for the Israelis, who consider them a threat to peace. One anti-Arab hate group that calls itself Christians for Israel's Biblical Land Right (CIBLR)* is touring the US with a movie aimed at Christian audiences, Judaizing them into an unconditional support of Israel's brutal efforts in holding possession of what is left of the Palestinians' land. The movie does the fanatical C. I. Scofield one better by interpreting Genesis 12 as follows:

"God unconditionally promised all the land to Israel forever" (2) "Israel (the present state) will be a blessing to all the other nations of the world."

How brazen. This Israeli organization, masquerading as followers of Christ, tells us God's promise did not mean a Savior named Jesus, but instead means that God's promise of a blessing to the world is through a corrupted, agnostic warring state with one of the highest abortion rates in the world, that conveniently named itself "Israel." What an insult to Jesus, what blight on the name of Christ, and those who follow Him! Amazingly, CIBLR raises its funds from Judaized Christians.

Are we expected to believe, contrary to all traditional teachings, that this politically criminal and remarkably immoral oligarchy is God's blessing to all nations? Judaized arguments for Israeli land rights fall apart like termite-infected wood when you pick them up to look at them. The only truly honest way to characterize the Judaized Christian position is "Balderdash!" which means, pompous nonsense.

IT IS STILL OK TO BE A TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN Traditional thinking is not extinct. Mainline Protestants and Orthodox Christianity lost membership to the evangelicals over the last 125 years after the then neo-evangelical movement was dumped on our shores, another gift from England, where it never flourished.

In contrast to the Judaized Christians and the Israelis, American mainline churches clearly state the traditional Christian interpretation of Genesis 12. For instance, the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA), uses a reference book called The Accent Bible (I found in the pews of one church) which provides a single definitive footnote explaining Genesis 12:1-3. It clearly states that the blessing was the Messiah called Jesus who would come to bring salvation to all men.

The overwhelming majority of Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, and Orthodox leaders, regardless of what other faults they may have, teach that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies. They also do not teach the Judaized idea of a new temple in Jerusalem, mystical wars, a red heifer sacrifice, Armageddon, and imminent end times, or a convenient "rapture" for the few. Most mainline Reverends, Pastors, and Priests would at least admit that their faith does not support the idea of a political state of Israel as a God icon, nor that Israel should be appeased by throwing one Arab country after another upon its burning altars.

But we find that few Catholics, Orthodox Priests, or Muslim Clerics, or mainline Pastors would be able to explain the powerful political forces that have supported Judaized Christianity since it snowballed beginning in the late 19th Century. They will privately acknowledge the apostasy of Judaized Christianity, but have no explanation as to its amazing growth.

Radical commentaries influence potential followers The Judaized Christian movement is only 125 years old, at most. It won its early converts from the complacent mainline churches in the early 20th Century, offering a religion of selfishness and rapture watching, to one of that required but failed to demand service and dedication.. The old church lacked sincerity; the new one offered sincere and loving self-service. But now mainline laymen have also been "Judaized" with outside church bible studies, and by bible guides and reference books bought in Judaized bible bookstores written by Timothy LaHaye and thousands of other commentators.

Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians, especially women, have been active in the popular Precepts Ministries, Bible Study Fellowship, and Community Bible Study, all of which are proudly Judaized. Mainline churches even loan their facilities for their studies. This, we think, can be likened to the hens renting the coup to the foxes for night school. Commentaries published by Judaized Christian authors commonly find their way into traditional church members' homes.

One of the most damaging and successful was by Henrietta C. Mears, who died in 1963, who wrote: What the Bible is All About. It has sold over 4 million copies in numerous editions since 1953, and is graced by a forward by Billy Graham. Mainline libraries and bookstores still sell reprint books of it. Mears says on page 40: "He (God) called a man named Abram to ...go to an unknown land where God would make him the father of a mighty nation. This begins the story of God's chosen people, Israel."

In 1953, the traditional Christian view could have been, but was not, "This is the first prophesy of the Messiah, Jesus Christ our Lord." The tribe of Israelites had no longer existed when Mears wrote her book in 1953, but Israel had just come into existence in 1948. She had to know she was ignoring what Christ said and imputing God's promise to a state that did not exist until 3000 odd years after Abraham. Obviously, Henrietta Mears, like the "Left Behind" rapture fiction of Tim LaHaye, and Hal Lindsay, believed the now political state was a prophecy fulfilled. This is what Judaized Christians believe as a cornerstone of their "faith."

Mears stretches the bible into preposterous fictions in her book, WHAT THE BIBLE IS ALL ABOUT, such as her chapter entitled, "Understanding Matthew," wherin on page 361 she wrote: "He (Jesus) foretold the coming of the world after his ascension until He comes back in glory to judge the nations as to their treatment of His brethren, the Jews (Matthew 25)."

Mears goes on to emphasize, lest anyone mistake her meaning, "It is the judgment of the gentile people concerning their attitude toward God's people."

Thus, she makes Jesus to be a racist in total distortion of what He is reported to have said in this very chapter. Christ's words, in fact, say nothing about the "Jews" or any race, but refer to the necessity of each follower to do onto the least of his "brethren" as if one is doing the act to, or for, Christ Himself. We are, as Christ says, to be judged worthy of "heaven" based upon these acts of kindness to the least of our brethren (all men, even including our enemies). This is also amplified in Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan. Our kindness is clearly not to be judged based upon what race the recipient belongs to.

MissMears uses almost the exact words found in the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible on page 1037, placed there in 1967, by Oxford University Press. , Oxford exceeded Miss Mears in brazen cutzpa by declaring "anti-Semitism" to be a "sin" in its page 19 footnote of the same edition, and then stated that nations will be punished for this sin. Oxford University Press is so secular it must not have know that nations do not sin, men do.

The blame for the Neo-Crusade and every bit of destruction in the Middle East should properly be placed on those leaders, be they the Christian Right or the mainline Pastors and Priests who are required by their own faith to demand peace, and yet instead, accept, if not openly campaign for, what they erroneously call "war." I am not the first one to notice this and write it down. F. Furman Kearney explained it in his classic 1986 book, MIDDLE EAST CRISIS IN BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE, in which he used the scholars' term "pre-millennnialist," where we say Judaized Christian.

"Militant pre-millennialism and Zionism must bear the moral responsibility for recent bloodshed in the Middle East and for more extensive bloodshed in World War III, if it comes as predicted by militant pre-millennialism." And, "Had the state of Israel not been established in 1947, the history of the Middle East for the last 35 years would be entirely different. We cannot, of course, know what history would have been. We can know, however, that bloodshed during the last 35 years has been caused by pre-millennial and Zionistic agitation that resulted in the creation of the state of Israel."

Kearley, who was a professor at Abilene Christian University, and head of its graduate studies program, also opined that the blame lies in Christians who "cannot pray for peace in the Mid-East" and who are blinded by the very prejudice that Jesus would denounce. Dr. Kearley understood and wrote this clearly, five years before the first bombing of Iraq in 1990. Judaized-Christians were already enabling what he called "World War III" against Islam.

We agree with Dr. Kearley; it is the Judaized Christian churches in America who are primarily responsible for the systematic annihilation of the people of Iraq, Gaza, and a dozen other past and pending sites. They are also responsible for the 1500 American lives lost, which only scratches the surface of the lives destroyed and scarred by those who forced them to perform extermination of others.

The mainline denomination leaders, who understand the heresy and say nothing, share the guilt. However, it is with the latter group that reform may and can begin. This time they must reform the Judaized. One could accurately reduce Judaized Christianity's dilemma to a bumper sticker slogan that every mainline church needs to proclaim: "JESUS, NOT ISRAEL, IS THE FULFILLMENT OF BIBLE PROPHESY."

If the mainline churches would tell the truth about the corruption of Scriptures and were unafraid to discuss the baselessness of the Judaized Christianity, they would start to win back the lost multitudes from the Judaized ranks. Some show signs of doing this. The World Council of Churches, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the American Episcopal Church are among groups condemning, sanctioning, or devesting of companies who do war business with Israel.*

Judaized Christian churches are led to believe serial wars are in their best interest but they, too, will find themselves to be victims. Some already are victims: How many of our dead military are no doubt from American Judaized churches, where not "serving" is thought of as un-patriotic, especially against Israel's percieved enemies. But the Neo-Crusade is also destructive to members who are balancing their beliefs against their children's lives. Judaized Christian laymen should be and can be persuaded to abandon their support of the Neo-Crusade. They need to embrace peace as Jesus did. They soon will do so because they will learn it is not in their best material interest, and they are the spiritual victims.

HOW TO CONFRONT THE JUDAIZED CHRISTIAN The Strait Gate Project confronts Judaized Christian churches. We confront them through the media and we confront them on their very doorsteps, in front of their very members. Our vigils' purpose is to let members know that there is something very wrong in their organization. Project Strait Gate was begun in the street, our contest will be won over the Internet, where we can reach and have reached millions, and can reach many more. To do this enormous task in the face of enormous resistance, we must have your help.

You can contribute to our mission. You can forward this letter to others. You can buy books and tapes from We Hold These Truths. You can form a Project Strait Gate Vigil team in your community. You can contribute to Strait Gate Ministries' And, You can do it!

Here is our address where you can assist us financially. You may also give over the Internet through our Bookstore and/or contribution site. Thank You

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS STRAIT GATE MINISTRIES P.O. Box 14491 Scottsdale, AZ 85267

Part 1: Why Some Christians Enable the Neo-Crusade and Others Oppose [url="http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/050224p1.htm"][color=#0000ff]http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/050224p1.htm[/color][/url]

[font=Times New Roman][size=4]Part 2a: Why Some Christians Enable the Neo-Crusade and Others Oppose[/size][/font] [url="http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/050309Wh2.htm"]http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/050309Wh2.htm[/url][url="http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?rpr/050222Wo.htm"][color=#800080][/color][/url]

[url="http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/050224p1.htm"][color=#0000ff][/color][/url]

Okiereddust

2005-03-20 02:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]Something I've been talking for a long time -- the need for excommunicating the judaizing heretics -- may be finally happening. It's healthy to reject the rotten :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]I don't know. Culturally and theologically, sometimes observing disputes like this I feel as remote as if I was observing a debate between minority Zoastrians and Sufi's in Khasmir. :notworth:

Centinel

2005-03-20 02:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I don't know. Culturally and theologically, sometimes observing disputes like this I feel as remote as if I was observing a debate between minority Zoastrians and Sufi's in Khasmir. :notworth:[/QUOTE]

My beef with the article is that it simplifies and boils things down to Liberal Protestant (Democrat) versus "Conservative" Evangelical (Republican) rhetoric.

I'll concede that LibProts with their social gospel are really the only church entitites seriously talking about divestment, but no mention is made of the Traditional Catholic, Traditional Lutheran, or Orthodox criticisms of Christian Zionism--that it's a flawed theology.

Okiereddust

2005-03-20 04:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Centinel]I'll concede that LibProts with their social gospel are really the only church entitites seriously talking about divestment, but no mention is made of the Traditional Catholic, Traditional Lutheran, or Orthodox criticisms of Christian Zionism--that it's a flawed theology.[/QUOTE]What do you expect from Jewish Week? No they don't talk about traditionalism's critique of Zionism, just as they don't talk about Positive Christianity's or radical Islam's critique - and I suspect to them its pretty much all the same.

Although BTW the parallel I used was Sufism vs Zoasterianism, the better comparison between the debate between liberal Protestants and Christian Zionists would be between the Trotskyites and Likudicks within Israel, or between the Bundists and Zionists among the czarist Russia's Jews. Its a debate over the proper means to expand Jewish power, certainly not its desirability. As far as I know and am concerned both sides are, (in Christian terminology) more Catholic than the Pope.