Replies

At this point we are only talking to each other. No problem if we just let this die after this reply. I just want to clarify my position, because I think it is likely that Pastor Dankoff might be following this thread, and I do not want to leave the impression that I am talking behind a fellow party member's back. You said I was being "roundabout." Being roundabout is not my MO. In fact, I'm often told I should be more roundabout. I would say nothing here that I would not say politely to Pastor Dankoff if our paths happen to cross in the future or in the e-mail group we have in common.

I believe antisemitism has become a word like racism that is almost totally meaningless. It is a boogey word thrown around to cut off debate. Unfortunately it is often used by the right, who should know better, and not just by the left. If it had any real meaning left it would apply only too hate. Therefore it would be antisemitic to say, "I hate Jews." It is not necessarily antisemitic to say that Jews and Israel have an influence on American foreign policy disproportionate to their numbers. I believe that is demonstrably true.

Where Pastor Dankoff and I would part ways is on theology. I am a dispensational premillennialist. (I am not 100% convinced and am open to dialog, but I strongly lean that way at present.) He is not. I believe there is still a future role for Israel in God's prophecy. Therefore I do not reject Zionism as such. I do not know Pastor Dankoff's exact eschatological position, but I am almost certain that he subscribes to Replacement Theology. The theology that says that the Church has replaced Israel in God's plan. And that the future promises that applied to Israel now apply to the Church and/or have been invalidated by their rejection of Jesus Christ. My theological system is the primary one of most modern Evangelicals. Replacement Theology is the official position of the Catholic Church among others (it originate with Augustine) and is really the historically older position. Someone who holds that position is obviously going to be skeptical of Zionism because they believe nation Israel, as in God's Chosen People, is no longer extant. In my perspective, however, Israel must be reconstituted in the Holy Lands before the Millennium. Hence less skepticism of Zionism.

That said, I view Zionism as an entirely religious issue. I have no problem with religiously observant, orthodox Jews wanting to return to the Holy Lands. I am less sympathetic of secular, nonpracticing Jews who don't even believe the Old Testament gravy training off a religious idea as simply an excuse to dispossess Palestinians of their land. Even though I see a future role for Israel, nothing relieves modern Jews from the responsibility to accept Christ as their means of salvation in the present Church age. Their is no current separate system of salvation for Jews. John Hagee, who Pastor Dankoff mentioned, believes that, and I believe that to be heresy, or at the very least borderline heresy. Some say that suggesting Jews need to accept Christ is in and of itself antisemitic. Well if so, then so be it. If being true to my faith gets me called names then I will chose my faith over popularity.

My criticism of Pastor Dankoff's piece is that I think it is unwise to publish in Al-Jazeerah. I also think it is unhelpful to say that fellow Christians (he mentioned Hagee, Reed, Robertson, and Falwell) are handled by Tel-Aviv. (I do think they are without a doubt in the hip pocket of the GOP. And I take a back seat to no one in my criticism of the leadership of the religious right for not defecting to the Constitution Party which is clearly more serious about the reforms they care about.) And I don't think terms like Zionist Occupied Territory help advance the debate. They just get people in a big ol' name calling match as the first of this thread demonstrated.

On the whole, I believe there is a whole segment of the right that spends an inordinate amount of time trying to sniff out antisemitism. As if knuckleheads like the SPLC on the left were not enough. I also believe there is a group of people who place more emphasis on the Israel/Palestine issue than it deserves because of what seems to me like a reaction to the disproportionate influence of the Israeli lobby. The consistent conservative position is nonintervention and non-entanglement. As I said above, we should give neither side one dime of foreign aid. We should not be "brokering" peace deals or trying to use our influence to bring one or the other side "to the table." We should mind our own business and let them fight it out as we sell both sides Big Macs.

One last thing. Some non-dispensational Christians spend as much time attacking dispensationalist as they do the left. (I'm not saying Pastor Dankoff does. I've never seen him comment on it as far as I can remember. But on other forums.) Because they believe that that theological belief inevitably skews our foreign policy towards Israel. I am living proof that that does not have to be true. I am one, and I counsel nonintervention every chance I get. All of us on the far right would be better off if we trained our sights on attacking the left and trying to "convert" the squishy GOP right.

Hope that is sufficiently not "roundabout."