Evangelicals : Righteous Gentiles for Israel (GateStone Institute) by Michael Curtis 05/31/12)
Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3086/evangelicals-righteous-gentiles-israel
GateStone Institute
GateStone Institute Articles-Index-Top
Publishers-Index-Top
Palestinians have used the falsehood that Israel is an apartheid
state to gain sympathy for their cause, By doing so, they and their
allies in the churches and elsewhere , purported concerned
with "Palestinian suffering," are their own worst enemies. By
maintaining the animosity against Israel, perhaps they are
deliberately trying to prevent a peaceful process of negotiation to
end the conflict.
Jews in democratic countries are disproportionately disposed more
than other groups to prefer the left spectrum of political and
cultural affairs -- a spectrum that is in general unfriendly to the
evangelical Christian movement. It is therefore not surprising that
only 20% of Jewish Americans hold a favorable opinion of the
Christian right, the members of which tend to be favorable to the
Republican Party. Yet it is strange when one considers that fact that
Evangelical Christians have been strong supporters of Israel. A
reasonable conclusion might be that for many American Jews, social
and cultural values are more significant than support for Israel.
Clearly, differences between many Jews and Christians, especially
evangelicals, exist on social questions such as abortion, women´s
rights, gay and lesbian rights, and political issues, such as
separation of church and state. Such differences, however, do not,
and should not, prevent a cordial and supportive relationship between
those churches and the state of Israel.
Many Christian Evangelicals have supported Israel politically and
financially since its creation. Evangelicals may even be the
strongest single group supporting Israel. Theologically, a
considerable number of evangelicals believe that Jews must possess
their historic right to the land before Jesus can return. With the
return of Jew to the Holy Land, evangelicals await the coming of the
apocalypse, the return of Christ, and the conversion of Jews.
Specifically, Israel is seen as playing a key role in events that
will lead to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, the
holders of this view support the existence of the state of Israel and
believe it will play a role in world affairs. Among the groups
holding this position are Eagle Wings, Christian Friends of Israel,
Bridges for Peace, and Christians United for Israel, which claims a
membership of over one million. They often quote and take literally,
Genesis 12, in which the Lord is quoted as saying to Abraham, "And I
will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee."
Evangelical supporters also sometimes refers to the Biblical passage
in Ezekiel (36: 24); writing at the time of the Babylonian captivity,
Ezekiel declared that God is speaking to the house of Israel: "I will
gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own
land." Christians also seem to appreciate and support contemporary
Israel as a democratic nation, exemplifying individual freedom, the
rule of law and modernity in a geographical area otherwise devoid of
these attributes. Endorsement also results from the realistic
understanding that Israel has been subject to constant attack by
modern Pharaohs in the Middle East and elsewhere who call, directly
and indirectly, not only for boycott and divestment of the state but
also repeatedly from Iran, for the genocidal elimination of Israel --
"Wiping it off the map" -- -- in violation of both Iran´s obligation
as a signatory to the United Nations Charter, which prohibits any
member nation from declaring war on another member nation, and as a
signatory to the 1948 Treaty Against Genocide.
For evangelicals, religious and political beliefs merge: God
maintains the Biblical covenant with the Jewish people, even though
they were and are not perfect; and further, the religious belief in
Jewish sovereignty over the Holy Land is deeper than the geopolitical
argument. However, some parts of that covenant are more controversial
than others in concrete interpretation for evangelicals; in
particular Genesis (15:18); "Unto thy seed have I given this land,
from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."
Public opinion surveys show that Evangelicals are likely to say that
religious belief was the single biggest influence leading them to
sympathize with Israel, to believe that God gave the land of Israel
to the Jews, that Israel fulfills the biblical prophecy about the
Second Coming of Jesus, and to declare they were more sympathetic to
Israel than to the Palestinians.
Surveys also show that in the first decade of the 21st century the
greatest increase in support for Israel of any religious group came
from the Evangelicals. Although this support may partly result from
the attempt to force the Second Coming, it is more likely to stem
from a variety of factors: God´s promise to bless those who bless the
Jews; appreciation that Jews provided the basis of Christianity;
remorse over the Holocaust and over the past animosity of Christian
churches towards Jews; the belief that God will judge people on how
they treat Jews; and the appreciation of the democratic and religious
free society that exists in Israel.
Christian churches, as a result of international pressure organized
by Palestinians and their allies, now have to consider resolutions
calling for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. Unlike
the Evangelicals, mainstream Protestant churches have been
sympathetic to Palestinian Christians and the Palestinian narrative
for some time, and have sought to raise awareness of what they call
persecution or oppression of the Palestinians. Increasingly they
recommend economic action against Israel and those who do business
with it.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America represented the
Evangelical position when it rejected divestment proposals regarding
Israel in 2007 and 2011. By contrast mainstream religious adherents
have differed on this question. To its credit, the United Methodist
Church, in spite of considerable pressure, on May 2, 2012 at its
meeting in Tampa, rejected a resolution calling for the Church to
join the Palestinian-inspired boycott, divestment and sanctions
campaign against three companies trading with Israel. The UMC had
rejected similar resolutions at its previous General Conference in
2008. The UMC in 2012, by a vote of 2 to 1, opposed action against
Caterpillar which supplies bulldozers to Israel; Hewlett-Packard,
which provides advanced biometric technology; and Motorola Solutions
which supplies surveillance equipment.
The UMC, however, spoke with an uncertain voice. By a 60 to 40 vote,
it did adopt a resolution recommending nations should prohibit the
import of products manufactured in "Israeli settlements on
Palestinian land" --- perhaps a warning sign that members of the UMC
in some geographical areas did support both boycott and divestment
resolutions against Israel. Palestinian pressure is already building
to influence the vote at the forthcoming general assembly of the
Presbyterian Church USA that will vote on a divestment resolution in
June 2012.
Mainstream American missionaries in the past, fostering Arab
nationalism for religious reasons, promoted anti-Zionism, if not
always anti-Semitism. The existence of Israel as a legitimate state
is now being challenged in a number of ways and by a variety of
media: by a Palestinian-initiated offensive to portray Palestinians
as suffering from human rights abuses and colonial crimes committed
by Israel; by the Electronic Intifada, an online Internet news
website; by the United Methodist Kairos Response; by individuals and
groups, such as the writers and academics Grace Halsell, Timothy
Weber, Tony Campolo, and Gary Burge, (Wheaton College), as well as
attendees, especially Stephen Sizer, the anti-Zionist Church of
England priest, at the Christ at the Checkpoint Conferences organized
by the Bethlehem Bible College.
Now, however, a shift in attitude is observable among some
Evangelicals. In the past, more extreme figures, such as Campolo,
Burge, or Jim Wallis (Sojourners) always championed the Palestinian
cause. More recently, however, major leaders such as Rick Warren have
seemed to be sympathetic to Muslims; Hank Hanegraaff (The Bible
Answer Man), who has been critical of Israel for some time, attended
a symposium at Tehran University; Lynne Hybels, wife of the mega-
pastor Bill Hybels; and popular speakers such as Shane Claiborne have
tended to echo the Palestinian agenda and narrative in speaking to
new and younger audiences within Evangelicalism.
Their argument is more based on a number of political factors
stemming from acceptance of the fallacious Palestinian narrative of
victimhood and unending Israeli oppression of Palestinians -- helpful
for the Palestinian government to instruct its citizens not to look
at it and the corruption and wretched governance as the source of the
misery, but instead at Israel and the Jews -- less on theological
grounds than on politically expedient ones, such as the refusal to
agree to be ruled over by anyone non-Muslim. Further, there are no
adverse consequences to demonizing Israel as there would be, for
example, if if one were to demonize Russia. They minimize the
existence of anti-Semitism, and brush aside or totally ignore
Islamist attacks on Israel. They openly refuse to accept Israel with
a dominant Jewish population , now in existence for 64 years, as an
independent, self-governing entity. Instead they advocate the
creation of a Palestinian state, sometimes alongside the state of
Israel, but often in place of it.
It is therefore heartening to learn of these Evangelicals, such as
the members of the Pentecostal-Charismatic Faith Church in Hungary,
the largest evangelical church in Europe, who are opposing this
attempt to disparage and to delegitimize the state of Israel.
An exceptional individual who has been an important counterweight to
the disparagers of Israel is Dr. Kenneth Meshoe, a member of the
South African Parliament, president of the African Christian
Democratic Party, and pastor of a South African Church. What is
particularly significant about pastor Meshoe is that he, as a black
South African, on a number of occasions, has put paid to the lie
spread by the Palestinian narrative, that Israel is an apartheid
state. At the international conference of legislators from around the
world held in Budapest on October 31, 2011, Pastor Meshoe replied to
the kind of fulminations published by the Electronic Intifada that
Israeli actions are "the epitome of apartheid" and aim at the
systematic destruction of Palestinian society. He describes those who
promulgate the lie of Israel-as-apartheid as ignorant individuals who
are not aware of, or who deliberately disregard, the true nature of
the negative impact of apartheid on black South Africans -- an
experience quite different from that of Palestinians in nature and
intensity. South African blacks were treated as second-class citizens
and were denied basic human rights. By contrast, he points out that
in Israel there are no laws discriminating against people on the
basis of their color or on the basis of their religion. Palestinians
have not suffered the pain of apartheid experienced by black South
Africans.
Pastor Meshoe amplifies his general remarks by specific examples. He
calls attention to the fact that in South Africa there were separate
modes of transport for blacks and whites; there were coaches in
trains only for black people, and others only for whites. Segregation
was present in schools, hospitals, public places, city parks,
benches, chairs, beaches. No such segregation exists in Israel.
In view of this empirical evidence why do members of some Churches
and their leaders argue Israel is an apartheid state? Palestinians
have used this falsehood to gain sympathy for their cause. By doing
so they, and their allies in the churches as elsewhere, purportedly
concerned with "Palestinian suffering," are their own worst enemies.
By maintaining the animosity against Israel, perhaps they are
deliberately trying to prevent a peaceful process of negotiation to
resolve the conflict.
Return to Top
MATERIAL REPRODUCED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY