Preaching Hate

topic by
ozzie
4/8/2002 (21:25)

This is what I heard on 550 (Georgia AM radio). A preacher specifically was preaching to his congregation that 'Abraham's son Isaac is the seed of the world while his son Ismael is the seed of evil. He went on to say that Israel is the seed of God's promises while the Muslim Arab world is a curse!'

I truly wonder how many priests are really preaching this message and how many Christians and others really believe that? It's very scary to think that the Arabs are prejudged before birth as evil according to this preacher's message of the scripture.....

Do people truly believe that the Israel of today (by name) is really the Israel referred to in the Bible? Because I thought the Israel referred to in the scriptures (Bible & Koran) is really all mankind not the state that was created in the MiddleEast....

reply by
JC
4/8/2002 (22:03)

reply top

I detest what that preacher said. It is despicable.

Ozzie - Do you realize that this is and worse is what Imans say about Jews on a daily basis?
What do you think of that?

As for your later question, I am not a particularly religious person. I take the bible as a work of literature, not as the actual word of God. (Same thing for the Koran). I do believe from my secular studies of the Old and New Testament that the Israel of the bible is the same as the Israel today in regards to physical geographical realities.

reply by
egyptian
4/8/2002 (23:26)

reply top

reply by
egyptian
4/8/2002 (23:40)

reply top

and here is the 700 club reasoning for preaching hate ..
The Roots of Christian Zionism within Evangelicalism

Christian Zionism has, in general terms, arisen from within Evangelicalism, and Fundamentalism in particular. Within that narrower circle, Christian Zionism is invariably associated with, although not exclusively, a dispensational reading of Biblical history and a premillennial eschatology. It would be useful therefore to amplify the meaning of these four theological terms.

1.1 Evangelicalism

The term 'Evangelicalism' denotes a broad spectrum of theological opinion arising out of the Reformation, Puritanism and Revivalism. Tertullian was one of the first to use the term around AD 200 in his defence of biblical truth against Marcion. Martin Luther used the term to describe John Hus, but it was Thomas More who introduced the word to the English language. In a 'vitriolic attack' on William Tyndale in 1532, More referred to those 'evangelicalles'.1 The distinctive doctrines of Evangelicalism include a belief in the supreme authority of scripture over tradition (sola Scriptura); in the literal interpretation of scripture; adherence to the historic creeds; the need for a personal faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and holiness; and a belief in the imminent, visible and personal return of Jesus Christ. Differences exist between 'open' and 'conservative' evangelicals as to the relative importance of such doctrines as infallibility and inerrancy. Evangelicalism is represented, and generally accepted, within all the main Protestant denominations and in Britain an increasing number of senior ecclesiastical posts are now held by evangelicals including Archbishop George Carey.2

Evangelicalism has become a popular subject for analysis, not least among proponents. 'The overwhelming majority of them present the picture of a Christian movement which is sweeping all before it, triumphing over both liberalism and ritualism.'3 Footnote key authors and books defining/tracing history of evangelicalism. See Marsden (p.4)

1.2 Fundamentalism

Within Western evangelicalism there are many strands defined by adherents as much as by opponents. These include those of fundamentalist, conservative, open and liberal. This spectrum has sometimes been simplified into the three categories of right, centre and left.4 The fastest growing and most influential of these is fundamentalism, also known in the United States as the 'Evangelical Right'. Fundamentalism draws its support primarily from the Baptist, Pentecostal and Independent Bible churches associated with individuals such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey and Mike Evans.5 The term 'fundamentalist' derives from a series of tracts entitled 'The Fundamentals' published from 1910 onwards in an attempt by American conservative evangelicals to defend the basis of historic Christianity and repudiate what they saw as 'modernism' and theological liberalism. The term 'fundamentalism' was first used by Curtis Lee Laws, the editor of the Baptist Watchman Examiner, in 1918 to describe the movement within Baptist circles dedicated to such a position.6 Much valuable research has already been undertaken into the nature of Christian fundamentalism7 and Protestant fundamentalism in particular,8 including the correlation between evangelical fundamentalism and anti-Semitism.9

(Need to draw upon Marty & Marsden (p. 77 and footnotes) neo-evangelicals. Note the formidable coalition in the 1920's (p. 57) - conservative Protestants - anti modernists and pessimistic about the future. (p. 41). In footnotes draw upon Marty, Marsden and other authors who trace the origins and history of fundamentalism. Marty for example describes a fundamentalist as an angry evangelical p.1)

Contemporary Christian Fundamentalism is the most active, exclusive, intolerant, and conservative wing of Evangelicalism, both theologically and politically. Its popularity is, in part, due to its near monopoly of television and radio evangelism; its espousal, especially in its 'Faith Movement' version, of a success oriented 'health and wealth' theology; its sacralising of the 'American Way'; its anti-Communist, xenophobic and anti-Moslem phobia; and its propensity to provide simplistic, infallible, biblical proof text panaceas for the world's problems.10 In the words of Gerald Butt, fundamentalism essentially, 'offers an outlet for frustrated ambitions.'11 Similarly, Michael Saward, an evangelical has compared some aspects of fundamentalism in its style to the culture of facism.12

Fundamentalist Christian Zionists are often outspoken and tend to advocate the annexation of the entire West Bank by Israel; support the lobby for other nations to return their embassies to Jerusalem as the undivided and eternal capital of the Jews; are committed to the building of the Third Jewish Temple and the re-institution of the priesthood and temple sacrifices as a precursor to the return of the Messiah.13 They have also helped facilitate the return or 'restoration' of Jews from around the world to Israel, especially those living in Russia and Eastern Europe, and deliberately encouraged their re-settlement in the Occupied Territories.14

There is a large and growing number of books written by evangelical and fundamentalist Christian Zionists presenting a largely pro-Israel yet apocalyptic scenario.15 Within contemporary Christian fundamentalism the most influential theological interpretation of history is known as premillennial dispensationalism.

1.3 Premillennialism

Traditionally there have been three mutually exclusive interpretations of the references to a millennial reign of Christ in Revelation 20 depending on whether it is understood literally or figuratively. These are amillennial, postmillennial, and premillennial.16 Premillennialists hold to the belief that Christ will return prior to the millennium. Premillennialists are themselves divided on the question as to when the so called 'rapture' will occur.17 Four distinct, mutually exclusive, positions have and continue to be held, the cause of some rather acrimonious disagreement within premillennialist circles.

1.3.1 Pre-Tribulationists

J. N. Darby18 influenced by Edward Irving19 and followed by C. I. Scofield20 and the early dispensationalists such as Lewis S. Chafer21 and Charles Ryrie22 held to this position. Ryrie describes pre-tribulationism as 'normative dispensational eschatology' and 'a regular feature of classic dispensational premillennialism'.23 Pre-tribulationist premillennialists believe that Jesus Christ will return in the air to 'rapture' the Church before the Tribulation begins on earth. After seven years of tribulation, Christ will return with His saints to overcome the Antichrist and his forces and establish God's millennial kingdom on earth. One popular exponent of this position is Tim LaHaye.

Are you ready for Christ's return? Do you believe that at any instant you could find youself hurtling through the skies to meet your Lord face to face? Are you confident that God will spare you and your loved ones the horrifying judgment of the Tribulation...Are you living your life as if each moment could be your last on earth?24

At the late 19th Century Niagara Prophetic Conferences attended by men like D. L. Moody and C. I. Scofield, alternative views of the chronology of the rapture, already present in the increasingly sectarian Brethren circles, emerged here also and caused considerable internal division within dispensational circles. This came to be known as the 'Rapture-Rupture' 25

1.3.2 Mid-Tribulationists

Mid-tribulationists assert instead that Christians will experience the first half of the Tribulation, that is three and a half years of persecution, and then at the mid-point of the Tribulation they will be raptured. Those who argue for such a position do so on the basis of Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 12:4 which include the phrase 'time, times and half a time.' This is taken to mean a period of three and a half years of tribulation, before the rapture.26

1.3.3 Post-Tribulationists

Authors such as J. Barton Payne, George Ladd and R. H. Gundry believe the Church will experience seven years of tribulation before Christ returns.27 Unlike Pretribulationists, they regard the references to the suffering of the 'saints' in Revelation as referring to Christians and not Jewish converts left on earth after the Church has been raptured.28

1.3.4 Pre-Wrath Tribulational

Marvin J. Rosenthal has literally incurred the 'wrath' of some pre-tribulationists29 for his controversial book, 'The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church'30 which he claims is a new understanding of the Rapture, the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ, to be distinguished from that of pre-, mid- and post-tribulationist views. Rosenthal insists, based on his ultra-literalist hermeneutic that the seven year period during which the Antichrist will supposedly arise, also known as the seventieth week of Daniel 9:24-27, must be separated into three not two.

The Bible teaches that there are three major sections to the seventieth week: the beginning of sorrows (Matt. 24:8), the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21), and the Day of the Lord (Matt. 24:30-31)31

Rosenthal therefore argues the Church will endure the Tribulation, but escape the wrath of the Day of the Lord immediately prior to Christ's return. Like most other premillennial dispensationalists however, he insists,

The Bible teaches that at Christ's return, a surviving remnant of Jews will be regathered to Israel and saved. God's covenant promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be literally fulfilled (Matt. 24:31; Rom. 11:25-26).32

Rosenthal's views are influential in so far as he has been the executive director of The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, and editor of Israel, My Glory, for sixteen years. He is now the executive director of Zion's Hope, an international mission agency and editor of Zion's Fire, an evangelical magazine.33

1.4 Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby is regarded as the father of modern dispensationalism34, although William Kelly Edward Irving played no small part in the restoration of premillennial speculations out of which Darby's dispensationalism arose.35 Ryrie insists that it is 'glib' to claim dispensationalism 'originated with Darby' and that it is historically inaccurate to claim that these views were taken over by Scofield.36 He does, however, concede that the 'system' of dipensationalism is recent in origin.37

The publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 by the Oxford University Press was something of a innovative literary coup for the movement, since for the first time, overtly dispensationalist notes were added to the pages of the biblical text. What distinguishes Darby's scheme and subsequent dispensationalists is the conviction that the dispensations are irreversible and progressive.38 While such a dispensational chronology of events was largely unknown prior to the teaching of Darby and Scofield39, the Scofield Reference Bible became the leading bible used by American Evangelicals and Fundamentalists for the next sixty years.40

Dispensationalists claim to find in Scripture evidence of seven distinct dispensations during which mankind has been tested in respect of specific revelation as to the will of God. In each, mankind, including in the sixth dispensation, the visible Church, has failed the test according to the distinct way in which God responded to humankind. These dispensations began with Creation and will end, it is claimed, in the Millennial kingdom.41 What distinguishes Darby's scheme and subsequent dispensationalists from earlier attempts to describe phases in biblical history is the conviction that God's way of dealing with humanity in previous dispensations were and remain, irreversible and progressive.42

These dispensations are seen by proponents as 'providing us with a chronological map to guide us.'43 Dispensationalism claims that God has two separate but parallel means of working, one through the Church, the other through Israel, the former being a parenthesis to the later.44 Thus there remains a distinction, 'between Israel, the gentiles and the church.'45 Chafer elaborates this dichotomy,

The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.46

Dispensationalism therefore refutes the supposition inherent in covenant theology that God has one purpose for all people and that in Jesus Christ the earthly is transformed into the heavenly.

This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.47

Dispensationalism is based on a hermeneutic in which all Scripture, and especially the prophetic, must always be interpreted literally. Scofield, who popularised and synthesised Darby's theology, taught,

Not one instance exists of a 'spiritual' or figurative fulfilment of prophecy...Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is always Zion...Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always literal.48

Chafer likewise criticises non-dispensational theology for giving a spiritual interpretation to earthly realities.49 Ryrie insists that dispensationalism and, in particular, 'this distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation.' 50 One is left in no doubt that such an interpretation is the only consistent one for evangelicals who claim to hold to a literal as opposed to liberal allegorical hermeneutic. Ryrie asserts,

To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it in all areas of biblical interpretation is.51

Based on such an interpretative principle, dispensationalists hold that the promises made to Abraham and Israel must await future fulfilment since they were never completely fulfilled in the past. So, for example, it is an article of normative dispensational belief that all Israel will be literally saved; that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants will be literally instituted; that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic kingdom centred on Jerusalem in the State of Israel.

In the light of this principle, it is legitimate to ask whether dispensationalism is not orientated more from the Abrahamic Covenant than from the Cross. Is not its focus centred more on the Jewish kingdom than on the Body of Christ? Does it not interpret the New Testament in the light of Old Testament prophecies, instead of interpreting those prophecies in the light of the more complete revelation of the New Testament?52

For normative dispensationalists then, the church is relegated to the status of a parenthesis53 in God's future and literal kingdom rule. This will be centred on Jerusalem during the millennium in which the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices restored. Often this kind of dogma, based on forced exegesis, is also asserted by those who are uncomfortable with or disillusioned by Jewish resistance to proselytism and who rest in the belief that 'all Israel will be saved' when or after Christ returns.54 Bass insists that,

No part of historic Christian doctrine supports this radical distinction between church and kingdom. To be sure they are not identical; but dispensationalism has added the idea that the kingdom was to be a restoration of Israel, not a consummation of the church.55

Premillennial Dispensationalism has come to dominate American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism especially through the influence of Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Bible Institute, to the point where the two (Evangelicalism and Dispensationalism) are virtually synonymous. Leading exponents include Charles Ryrie56, Lewis Sperry Chafer57, Dwight Pentecost58, John Walvoord59, Eric Sauer60 and Hal Lindsey.61 The movement has grown in popularity within evangelical circles, particularly in America and especially since 1967, coinciding with the Arab-Israel Six Day War and a few years later in 1970 with the publication of Hal Lindsey's 'The Late Great Planet Earth'62 Tracing the development of Christian Zionism from the mid 19th and early 20th Century, the premillennial dispensationalist preoccupation with a distinctly Jewish millennium preceded by a pre-tribulation rapture of the Church and an end-time gathering of the remnant of Israel, came to replace the simpler form of historic premillennialism.63

...the dispensationalists had won the day so completely that for the next fifty years friend and foe alike largely identified dispensationalism with premillennialism.64

There has also been some constructive dialogue between contemporary Dispensationalists and Reformed theologians on the relationship of the Church to Israel, although primarily still as a theoretical and academic, theological question.65 A new generation of younger dispensationalists among the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary have attempted to redefine their movement as 'progressive dispensationalism'.66 They distance themselves from what they regard as the the 'na�vet�' of the founder's vision, 67distinguishing the traditional dispensationalism of Lewis Chafer and Charles Ryrie68 from 'Scofieldism',69 as well as from 'the popular 'apocalyptism' of Lindseyism'.70 They regard themselves as 'less land centred' and less 'future centred'.71 Ryrie is sceptical, unwilling to concede to such revisionism. He prefers to describe the position of theologians such as Blaising and Bock as 'neo-dispensationalist' or 'covenant dispensationalist', for holding for instance to a 'slippery' hermeneutic.72

Ryrie similarly insists on distinguishing normative dispensationalism from 'Ultradispensationalism'. This is rooted in the teaching of Ethelbert W. Bullinger (1837-1913) and his successor Charles H. Welch, who, according to Ryrie, have merely carried dispensationalism to its 'logical extremes'. Ultradispensationalists hold for instance, that the Church did not begin at Pentecost but in Acts 28 when Israel was set aside; the Great Commission of Matthew and Mark is Jewish and therefore not for the Church; the Gospels and Acts describe the dispensation of the Law; only the Pauline prison epistles, that is Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, relate to the Church Age; water baptism is not for the Church Age; and Israel, not the Church, is the Bride of Christ.73 Their teachings are perpetutated today by the Berean Bible Society, Berean Expositor, Berean Publishing Trust74 and Grace Mission.

Despite these attempts to redefine and reshape the dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield, some remain unconvinced.75 As an outsider, James Barr insists in all its variations, 'Dispensationalism is a totally fundamentalist scheme.'76

Following Scofield's literalistic hermeneutic, most contemporary premillennial dispensationalists of what ever type, equate the State of Israel with biblical Israel; the Jews are still regarded as God's 'chosen people'; and consequently people of Jewish descent have a divine right to the land in perpetuity.

Crucial to the premillennial dispensationalist reading of biblical prophecy, drawn principally from Daniel and Revelation, is the assertion that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt on the Temple Mount as a precursor to the Lord returning to restore the Kingdom of Israel centred on Jerusalem. This pivotal event is also seen as the trigger for the start of the war of Armageddon.77

Clearly such views, whether promulgated by respectable Christian theological institutions like Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute, Jewish fanatics such as Baruch Ben-Yosef and the Temple Mount Yeshiva,78 or simply by naive members of pilgrimage parties, are anathema to the majority of Jews, Christians and Moslems living in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Even more tragic, these beliefs sour relations between Moslem Arabs and Christian Arabs perpetuating fears of a revived Western military adventurism dating back to the Crusades. According to Armstrong, who traces the pervading legacy of the Crusades on the contemporary Middle East, fundamentalists, 'have returned to a classical and extreme religious crusading.'79

Ominously, Charles Colson, the former senior aide to president Richard Nixon, claims that the United States Government has contingency plans for just such a scenario, and would use force to disarm Jewish fanatics from destroying the Dome of the Rock if Israeli forces were unwilling to do so.80

Kenneth Leech offers this critical assessment of Christian fundamentalism and also some grounds for its evaluation.

Biblical fundamentalism has normally been accompanied by manifestations of bigotry, intolerance and violence...Fundamentalism of this kind is a serious danger to Christian spirituality as well as to the health of any community in which it is present. It is a pathological growth upon the Christian movement and calls for very serious and thoughtful responses.81

The Palestinian Christian community has, especially since 1948, suffered isolation, discrimination and persecution in a way that some describe as a form of apartheid or 'ethnic cleansing'. They are presently caught between three forms of religious fundamentalism, a Moslem fundamentalism which regards them as traitors to the Arab cause; a Jewish fundamentalism which perceives them as a 'fifth column' and impediment to the realisation of a 'Greater Israel'; and a Christian fundamentalism which is infatuated with Zionism and is, in the words of Don Wagner, 'Anxious for Armageddon,'82 unable to comprehend why Christian Palestinians do not support the State of Israel against the perceived threat of Islam. They have experienced as a people, how, 'Fundamentalism represents a narrowing of vision, a closing of doors, a diminishing of human beings, and a backward force in human history...'83

The plight of the Palestinian Church is made worse by the fact that they are ignored by the majority of Christian pilgrims and tourists, of all traditions, who visit the Holy Land primarily to see the sites associated with the Bible. My previous research has shown that their itineraries tend to follow a predictable pattern determined more by the strategies of the Israeli Government Ministry of Tourism than the needs of the indigenous Christian communities for contact and fellowship.

As a consequence, a significant numbers of Palestinians continue to leave their homeland out of desperation, fear and intimidation. The very real danger is the creation of what Archbishop George Carey once described as 'an empty Christian Disney World.'

While Evangelicalism and Christian Fundamentalism, in particular, have attracted a considerable amount of attention in academic circles,85 their influence upon the rise of Christian Zionism appears to have escaped serious consideration apart from a few notable exceptions.86 Indeed Marsden concedes that,

Even most of those neo-evangelicals who abandoned the details of dispensationalism still retained a firm belief in Israel's God-ordained role. This belief is immensely popular in America, though rarely mentioned in proportion to its influence.87

In the light of an extensive survey of published literature as well as through dialogue with Christians in Britain, Israel and the Occupied Territories there appears to have been little research so far into the theological origins and variations within the Christian Zionist community, nor an assessment of its influence on Christian pilgrims and the Palestinian Christian community.88 It is for these reasons that this research into the origins, nature and impact of Evangelical Christian Zionism was initiated. It is often only when Christians visit the Holy Land on a pilgrimage and by chance meet Palestinian Christians that they begin to realise the devastating consequences of such theological views on the indigenous church. The second chapter will appraise the main historical influences upon the rise of contemporary Christian Zionism.