The Roots of Christian Zionism

In light of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent speech to the US Congress, I thought it important to consider the history of Christian Zionism, and how this movement influences so much of contemporary eschatological discussion.

In a 2013 series of thoughtful essays on the subject, Gerald McDermott lays out a brief history of Christian Zionism, in which Jonathan Edwards plays an important role.

Here are several highlights from the first essay in the series, Christian Zionism.

According to Arthur Hertzberg, this American linkage of Jewish conversion to the millennium was why "American intellectual anti-Semitism never became as virulent as its counterparts in Europe." Christians in Europe believed the End was in the indefinite future. But in America the End seemed near because of the influence of Puritan theology and its foregrounding of Israel, and according to these Puritans the End would not come without major changes in the fortunes of the Jews. So in the colonies, the Jewish question moved "to center stage."

The June 1967 war was a watershed in Christian attitudes toward Israel. Evangelicals saw this once again as confirmation that Jews and Israel still had a role to play in God's ordering of history. From this point on, Merkley reports, Christian Zionists were generally but not exclusively conservatives theologically, while Christian anti-Zionists were generally but not exclusively theological liberals. World Council of Churches (WCC) documents typically moralized about the human weakness for raising mere geography ("real estate") to a spiritual status, and "invariably" treated the creation of the State of Israel as problematic—never as the solution to a problem. The National Council of Churches (NCC) denounced the 1978 Camp David Accords for allegedly ignoring the national ambitions of the Palestinian Arabs. According to Merkley, the mainline Protestant churches of the West joined the churches of the East in an attitude of resentment "shading over into active hostility."

Although I do not agree with Dr. McDermott's endorsement of Christian Zionism, his first essay is very helpful in understanding the history of the Christian Zionist movement, which explains, in part, some of the political hubbub about Netanyahu's speech, especially between evangelicals and the secular left.

One very clear and solid statement (of a non-Zionist variety) regarding Israel's role in the modern world as a secular nation, is this 2002 statement, "The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel."  It too is well-worth reading:  Click Here.

"This Is How You Pray -- and Then Sue"

The famous figure of the man giving thanks for his daily bread demonstrates why, when praying over one's food, we should keep a reasonable distance (h.t. Larry Johnson).

Unlike the unnamed figure in the painting, it seems that a Mr. Hiram Jimenez got a bit too close to a sizzling plate of fajitas at his local Applebees' and burned his face.  He then sued the restaurant chain for negligence.  Burned by Hot Fajitas

Hiram Jimenez sought damages from Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar after a March 2010 incident at the chain's restaurant on Burlington-Mount Holly Road. But an appellate panel said Applebee's can't be held responsible because the hot food posed an "open and obvious" danger.

According to the ruling, Jimenez ordered fajitas that were placed in front of him in a "sizzling skillet." When he bowed his head "close to the table," the ruling says, Jimenez heard "a loud sizzling noise, followed by 'a pop noise' and then felt a burning sensation in his left eye and on his face."

In an incident report prepared for Appelebee's, Jimenez said he was burned on his face, neck and arms after "grease popped" on the fajitas

His lawsuit said a waitress did not warn Jimenez that the dish was hot. It argued Jimenez suffered "serious and permanent" injuries "solely as a result of (Applebee's) negligence when he came in contact with a dangerous and hazardous condition, specifically, 'a plate of hot food'."

A trial judge dismissed the suit, finding Applebee's — a California-based chain with more than 1,900 restaurants — was not required to warn Jimenez "against a danger that is open and obvious."

The initial suit was dismissed, and an appelete court agreed--throwing the whole thing out.

Better to follow the example set by the old man--keep your soup cool and your face far away from the table!

Herding Cats -- Literally

There is a small island in Japan that is overrun by cats.  The cats have inbred for so long, they all look alike.  Is it just me, or does the woman sound like the cats she's herding?  Or do the cats imitate the woman feeding them?

 

A trip here is not on my bucket list of places to visit.

Who Is Watching Joel?

Who is watching Joel Osteen?  Not I!  But he does amaze me.  How can he preach on the exact same topic every Sunday--"God wants me to be better"--and, yet make it seem different?

When it comes to Christian media, and who accesses it, the numbers are revealing.  Who Is Watching TV or Listening to Christian Radio?

Only 8% of Americans admit to watching Christian television regularly--I'll bet the demographics here are interesting.  Probably older women with blue hair, who live below the Mason-Dixon line, and east of Mississippi.

24% watch Christian TV "sometimes," 27% "rarely," and 40% "never."

Christian radio fares a tad worse.  10% listen "regularly," 17% "sometimes," 19% "rarely,"  52% "never."

Podcast numbers are low (the media is new).  4% "regularly," 10% "sometimes," 11% "rarely," 72% "never."

The numbers also show that

67 percent of Americans never or rarely watch Christian-based programming on television. Those who do watch at least sometimes are overwhelmingly self-identified evangelicals (69 percent) and weekly churchgoers (62 percent).

71 percent never or rarely listen to Christian radio. Those who do are similar to the Christian TV crowd — 67 percent are evangelicals and 57 percent are weekly churchgoers.

84 percent of Americans never or rarely listen to Christian-themed podcasts. Books and movies fared slightly better: 33 percent said they at least sometimes read Christian-based books. And 40 percent report seeing a Christian movie in the last year.

The American Religion -- Mormons Observing Lent?

This article caught my eye--Six Ways Mormons Can Enjoy the Spirit of Lent.  Why would Mormons want anything to do with Lent?--something Mormons have historically associated with paganism creeping into the church shortly after the age of the apostles.  Well, if American evangelicals are now attracted to such things, Mormons will do the same.

Notice the way in which the author of this essay (Kelsey Berteaux) explains how easily the Lenten season can be made to fit right in with Mormon notions of works-righteousness ("grace coupled with obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel") . . .

Though Latter-day Saints don’t observe the traditions of Lent, we can always learn a thing or two from it as we search for things that are of good report and praiseworthy. After all, we can always use a reminder to be better and have a more meaningful Easter.

Lent is well-known as a time to sacrifice. For the next 40 days (plus Sundays, which aren’t counted as part of the 40-day Lent tradition), make a “negative” change by resolving to take something bad out of your life. You could try giving up a TV program, excessive social media use, bad music, junk food, or something else you struggle with.

Here is the part that really jumped out . . .  A citation from the Book of Mormon is actually adduced to support the practice.

The idea behind this tradition is captured beautifully in the words of Lamoni’s father:

“I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day” (Alma 22:18).

There are other ways Lent can be co-opted by Mormons.

As with LDS fasting, traditional Lent followers donate the money saved from eating a sacrifice meal to the poor and needy. Consider donating the money you saved to fast offerings along with your normal monthly donation.

During Lent, incorporate the color purple into your life in some small way. Consider putting out a purple table runner, buying purple flowers, or hanging a purple picture in your home. Then, every time you see the item (or any other purple item you encounter during your day), think back on the Savior and His sacrifice on your behalf. Also remember the commitments you’ve made as part of your Lent celebration.

The point of observing Lent—however you decide to do it—is to find more meaning in the Easter season and draw closer to Christ. The best, and perhaps simplest thing you can do is resolve to learn more about our Savior and His sacrifice.

The pressing issue here, of course, is that the Mormon "Christ" is none other than the spirit-brother of Lucifer, who was raised by the Father--who, in Mormon theology, is also a glorified, immortal, and resurrected man.

Since Mormonism consistently seeks to masquerade as a "Christian" denomination, well then, if the evangelicals are interested in Lent, Mormons need to be as well.  Got to keep up with the Jones' you know.

Only in the bizarro world of American religion . . .

"It's Good to Be the King"--Unless You Are a German King in Great Britain

Americans love the Royal Family and are quite fascinated by them.

In 1981, countless Americans stayed up very late to watch the fairy-tale wedding of lady Diana Spencer to Prince Charles, only to spend a very sleepless Saturday night years later watching the news coverage when Diana died in Paris in a horrific 1997 traffic accident.  Americans express great admiration for Queen Elizabeth, and we comb the tabloids to keep up with the doings of Kate and Prince William.

This fascination is aided by the fact that Great Britain has been our greatest ally through two world wars, the Cold War, and in the seemingly endless war on terror.

A recent essay in the BBC New reminded me that although Americans greatly admire Great Britain and the House of Windsor, during the Great War, the English people had big problems trusting their own monarch.  The UK was led by a man (King George V), whom many considered to be a German sympathizer, and who happened to be Kaiser Wilhelm II's first cousin.  

King George V cut a striking figure.  But he was a Hanoverian king, whose family name included the suffix "of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha."  This might not be that big a deal, until your nation is engaged in a fight to the death with Germany.  Throughout the war years, there was an increasing wave of suspicion that England's royals were not terribly loyal to England's cause.  And so with the stroke of a pen, the "Hanovers" of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, became the "Windsors," the Royal Family we now know and love.

According to a recent essay in the BBC News (Click Here), the growing pressure of anti-German sentiment in the UK in the years between 1914-1917, brought about a significant change in the Royal Family's identity.

So in 1917 the royal family saw their name change overnight, princes lost their titles and became lords, the Battenbergs opted for literal translation and became Mountbatten, and the quintessentially royal and English "Windsor" was introduced - the brainchild of the king's private secretary Lord Stamfordham.

"Prince Louis of Battenberg went to stay with his son at a naval base in Scotland and wrote in the visitors book 'arrived Prince Hyde, left Lord Jekyll'," says Mr Little.

The BBC News essay goes on to note, this name change had far-reaching consequences for many immigrants.

But the royals' decision to change name was a path also trodden by immigrants to the UK in the 19th and 20th Century, particularly Jewish.

For Jews and other immigrants arriving in the 19th Century to live in an East End populated by co-religionists a name change was unnecessary, but for those aiming for middle class respectability it could be a temptation.

It may be "good to be the king," just not a Hanovarian king from Saxe-Gotha, while ruling over a British empire, which happens to be at war with Germany.  It is worth noting that while the Hapburgs and Hohenzollerns lost all titles and rule, the Windsors live on, beloved in the UK, as well as here in America.

A Christian Jihad? Self-Defense as a New Crusade?

What do you do if you are a Christian living in an area now overrun by ISIS (say in Lebanon, Syria, or Iraq)?

According to just war theory, and at least one traditional Christian view of self-defense, one option is joining a local militia of your countrymen (or your ethnic minority, as typical in that region), take up arms, and defend the lives of your family and neighbors.  ISIS constitutes a threat real and serious enough that this may be necessary, if fleeing the area is not possible.

But some Christians facing this threat are now calling for a distinctly "Christian" militia to wage a "holy" war on Islam as a means of self-defense.  A Christian Call for Jihad.  Here is a "rubber hits the road," situation, if I've ever seen one.

While I am more than willing to cut much slack to those whose very lives are endangered by ISIS Islamists, I cringe at the sentiments spelled out by the embattled leaders of those calling for a Christian Jihad, and a new crusade as a form of self-defense.

True love is never settled by compromise, but through bloodshed. Christ said,  “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” (John 15:13) And the Christian militias who have risen up to fight the torrent of the Islamic sword that seeks to destroy their friends, their brethren, these are the ones who exemplify this eternal passage in the purest fashion.

These Christians are part of The New Militia, or the militia that foreshadows The New Crusade that is to come, in which Christendom will revive and destroy the enemies of God and the haters of the Cross, and establish the holy light over the wretched shadow of Satan’s darkness.

The Christian militias in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and other lands inflicted by the violent inflictions of Islam, are truly pioneers that cause us to foresee the advent of the most holy Crusade, in which nations of mighty Christendom will revive themselves, pick up the Cross and with Christ as their General, destroy the armies of the Antichrist.

One of the fighters mentioned in the article states,

I want to say also that the first enemy of us, isn’t Islam, the first enemy for us is the weak Christians that do not have the courage enough to spread the Bible

The Creed of these "Christian fighters" is chilling

Awaken, holy Christendom!
Blossom with your beautiful pedals in the spring of the holy fray!
Take your inheritance, O holy Christendom,
From the pagans who stole it away!
Conquer with Cross and Sword!
Fight for Heaven and Your Lord!
Drive out the Muslim!
Drive out the Sodomite!
Drive the devils away with all your might!
With zeal we fight for God
And all the saints of holy martyrdom
For the blood of glorious martyrs
Awaken, O Christendom

Islamic efforts to restore the Caliphate, now give rise to a call for a counter-balancing Christendom, in which all enemies of General Jesus have been defeated.  "If they want their caliphate, we'll have our renewed Christendom."  Sadly, the argument has emotional legs given the fact that modern national borders (Syria, Iraq and Lebanon) were arbitrarily drawn by the victors after World War One.  The modern national boundaries which matter to us, are virtually meaningless to people whose historic ties and ideological roots go back to their ethnic communities, and to those two religious-political empires which for centuries waged war upon each other.  

No doubt, the problems here are deep and beyond an immediate solution, but calls for a restored Caliphate or a renewed Christendom, only guarantee continuing violence and bloodshed.

Very bad things often happen when people find themselves in dire straights--the threats these Christians face real and unlike anything I'll ever likely face.  But when a legitimate case for armed self-defense is transformed into a call for a "Holy War" and a "New Crusade," it is apparent that the two kingdoms have been hopelessly confused, and the situation illustrates that until NATO and/or the UN can restore the peace, the temptation to wage war and kill your enemies in the name of Jesus will surely continue.

Self-defense and protection of your neighbor is required in the face ISIS-led bloodshed.  But Jihad, "Holy War" and a restored Christendom have little to do with legitimate self-defense.

"Je Suis Charlie"! Not so Fast

David Brooks' editorial I Am Not Charlie Hebdo in the New York Times is spot on, and I encourage you to read it in its entirety.

A couple of salient quotes from Brooks:

Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.

Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians. 

The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.

In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table. The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table. They’re not granted complete respectability, but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things that no one else is saying.

Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech, but they do grant different standing to different sorts of people. Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect. Racists and anti-Semites are heard through a filter of opprobrium and disrespect. People who want to be heard attentively have to earn it through their conduct.

Brooks concludes,

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating.

Ben Sasse's Senatorial Campaign

Here's a great essay on how Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse went from a 3% statewide name recognition, to eventually winning in every county in Nebraska--without using any negative campaign ads.

The Anatomy of a Campaign

Gettin' the Ole Bell Rung . . .

There was a lot of great college football yesterday, but the most memorable play was the poor Baylor kicker getting blindsided by a Michigan St. player after his own kick was blocked.  Talk about adding injury to insult!  He later tweeted, "I'm alive."  Ouch.  I'll bet he feels it today.