Israel's Choice - War or Peace?

The time for Israeli action against Iran seems to be drawing closer, according to a Daily Telegraph news item, as an international armada gathers to protect the Strait of Hormuz Armada of international naval power massing in the Gulf as Israel prepares an Iran strike. Is this for real, or is it just growing, but groundless fear? Vague chatter on the web is that Yom Kippur may be the date for an attack 25/26 September 2012 - we shall see.

Of course the majority of Israelis would prefer peace, but they may not get a say. Israel's choice now is to pursue peace through submission to the UN, or to go it alone and face the danger of Iranian retalliation.

Jeremiah (as we read in chapter 38) was thrown into a pit because of his prophecies. But he was brought out and said to King Zedekiah that the king and city of Jerusalem would be saved if he submitted to Babylon, but if not then the city and king would destroyed and the people carried into exile. For us today the UN is the closest thing to Babylon - yes it may be ruled by the worldy system, but God raises up even the wordly systems to train the righteous towards godliness for those who accept the wooden yoke. For those who rebel and resist there is the iron yoke. Jeremiah 28:13-14 says this. “Go and tell Hananiah, ‘This is what the Lord says: You have broken a wooden yoke, but in its place you will get a yoke of iron. 14 This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: I will put an iron yoke on the necks of all these nations to make them serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and they will serve him."

Many of us have called for a peace settlement with the Palestinians and Arab neighbours through the UN, and we do not wish to see the Israeli people face the coming threat as some of their leaders wish. There is still time for Israel to go to the UN and seek a settlement that brings peace to the State of Israel, let us pray that the leadership takes the wiser choice.

Israeli rhetoric on Iran - harder to back down

The Israeli government has for a while been upping the rhetoric on attacking Iran. The trouble is the more one gives out, the harder it is to back down. Netanyahu and Barak may have backed themselves into a corner where they have no choice, but to launch an attack. Many Jews in Israel are though fearful of the outcome and fall out and they need our prayers at this time. Consider this news report from Israel National News which suggests next 50 days will be decisive. Hanegbi comments that "We now stand, in my opinion, before the 50 most fateful days in Israel's history, since perhaps the Yom Kippur War, in which there were also several dozen fateful days."

Three Christian Zionist Arguments in Support of Israel

I would suggest we can categorise three theological arguments that Christian Zionists makes in support of Israel. Now, it is acknowledged that not all proponents of Zionism will agree with all of this, and there is internal division, but I believe this list forms a broad basis for discussion.

1. The first is something we might all broadly agree with whether Zionist or not; that is that Christians should love Jews and support their peaceful existence and co-existence where ever they live, in the Holy Land or elsewhere. And because Jews have suffered through history they need a homeland, so why not the Holy Land? Furthermore, God has allowed Jews to live in the Holy Land and establish a state, at least in part of it by his permissive will, and we should not oppose that.

2. The second is a positive theological argument towards the divine right of Jews to live in the Holy Land. This position seeks to justify the expansion of land controlled by Jews because it is held that God has given it to them by Old Testament promises - from the Nile to the Euphrates. In extreme cases it assumes that Jews can do no wrong in defence of this right. This position is however debated sharply because it involves biblical interpretation concerning land and application of promises, and it is a position challenged by Christian supporters of Palestinians.

3. The third is a negative theology towards the Church that seeks to undermine the claim of Christendom to Old Testament Abrahamic promises. The traditional Pauline - Augustinian claim involves the doctrine that the Church is the legitimate continuity of Israel because it was formed by the Messiah-King Jesus and by Jewish disciples and fulfills Old Testament promises. The negative theological challenge to this is promoted by misrepresenting the Reformed Augustinian theology so that it is taught by Zionist proponents that the Reformed theology holds that God replaced Israel with the Church. It potentially sets up a false dichotomy through use of straw-man arguments by over emphasising replacement theology. Yes, supercessionism does exist in popular form, and it needs to be challenged, but the true nature of the Augustinian doctrine focuses instead upon the continuity of the City of God from Old to New Testaments; i.e. the Jerusalem that is free, eternal and above is being established on the Earth through the Christian mission as an extension of Israel’s mission. One may ask however whether the negative Zionist doctrine effectively undermines the strength of evangelical Christian faith because it encourages Christians to look upon the Church as a sort of social-club-for-Gentiles devoid of its inheritance in Jesus as the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham through Israel.

There are other questions that arise with these three positions as well.

Does position two effectively undermine position one because it increases tension in the Middle East by giving theological justification to take land belonging to others? Even many Jews in Palestine are worried about position two, and would exchange land for peace.

Does position three effectively provide support amongst Christians for position two?

Are positions two and three really necessary in order to support position one? Most Christians support position one without encouragement because of Christian duty. I would suggest that positions two and three are unnecessary and unhelpful in seeking to uphold position one.

Israel - Stepping Up Pressure on Iran

Israel is reported to be preparing with even greater urgency for an attack on Iran according to the Telegraph. Citizens will apparently be getting text messages once the fall-out begins and Iran responds with its own barrage of missiles. Those of us who are sceptical of Zionism are not the ones who wish such level of destruction upon the Jewish people - the biggest threat to Jews is coming from within Israel, and many Jews are rightly concerned about the direction of their own government's policy.

Bunker Buster Ready for use Against Iran

According to the Telegraph - US bunker-buster bomb 'ready to go' - The US Air Force's massive 30,000lb bunker-buster bomb critical for striking heavily fortified Iranian nuclear facilities is "ready to go"

Someday politicians will wake up and understand that you can't bring peace, justice and reconciliation to the Middle East by use of larger and larger weapons. If used against Iran, there will sadly be a great deal of retaliation in terms of missiles raining down on Israel. But the Israelis believe on balance it will be safer to stop Iran from getting hold of the bomb. High stakes for a small country surrounded by enemies. Christians need to pray for peace in Palestine-Israel. 

Is it OK to Attack Christians if you are on the Right, but not the Left? Cranmer’s Inconsistency

A few days ago the Cranmer blog was defending Evangelical Christians against ‘liberal’ attacks in the Guardian. A government advisor Alan Judd had laid into the Christian belief of creation in relation to education policy, and why it needed to be excluded from schools. Cranmer offered a very useful defence on the 20th July 2012 DfE labels evangelical Christians 'extremist'

However a few days later he posts an open letter from Rev. Nick Howard and co., which attacks the South East Gospel Partnership (SEGP) because of its refusal to sanction or withdraw fellowship from Rev. Stephen Sizer. Cranmer asks ‘Why does the South East Gospel Partnership tolerate anti-Semitism?’ 21 July 2012

The allegations that Howard makes have been examined by Police and Sizer’s own Bishop and found wanting. That isn't to say that people don't make mistakes, but if Sizer has been cleared by his own Bishop the SEGP surely has a Christian duty to remain in fellowship with him. Why then the renewed attack by Howard, now on the SEGP? Cranmer further basically accuses the SEGP of tolerating anti-Semitism. There does seem to be a determined effort here to divide and discredit a respectable group of evangelicals in an attempt to isolate Stephen Sizer. Unfortunately, the SEGP seems caught up in a proxy war within the Anglican Church over political support for Israel and Palestine. Perhaps Howard thinks the SEGP is of no consequence because they are not a Christian Zionist group, but this desire to expand the battle lines reflects badly on his cause.

So, a question for Cranmer - is it acceptable to attack Evangelical Christian groups from the Right, but not the Left? Instead, do we as Christians not have a duty to forgive our brothers and build community, or do some political manoeuvres triumph Christian faith?

One thing I have observed in life is that there is as much error on the political right as there is the left. As a social conservative I believe we need to uphold both social responsibility as well as personal responsibility. Sadly, conservatives sometimes have a bad habit of defending inequality and injustice - the same may apply to a lack of concern for Palestinians as they are forced out of their homes and land. As Christians we have a duty to work for peace, justice and reconciliation on all sides, Jews and Palestinians, as we seek to bring knowledge of Christ to all people and to all nations.  

The Church of England, EAPPI and Israel-Palestine

Giles Fraser offers a balanced commentary on the controversy regarding the Church of England's support for the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI). Should the C of E remain silent on Israel-Palestine The General Synod has endorsed the EAPPI statement, but Fraser believes the Church of England's actions are open to challenge, even if he is sympathetic to the question of justice. He writes

"Nonetheless, the friends of Israel do themselves few favours if they insist that all criticisms of Israel's behaviour towards Palestinians are motivated by one-sidedness or hostility to Jews. I'm not saying this happens all the time. But when it does, those of us who want to be critical friends of Israel (and Palestine) find that the ground on which we stand is constantly eroded. I believe in the existence of the state of Israel and in its need for security. But the "with us or against us" approach needs to be resisted at all times. And that means holding a position that is likely to draw vociferous criticism from several different quarters. But unless this ground can be held, we concede to a dangerous binary division that can only be settled by further violence. To spell it out: critical friends have a responsibility to be both critical and to be friends."

We need to remember that there are political pressures on both sides in what is a highly charged dispute over land, but primarily Christians are called to work for peace, justice and reconciliation for all. There are human tragedies that are very real for those caught up in the conflict on both sides. Of course that is an easy platitude to say, but true nonetheless.