Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evangelical Split Over Israel Batters Bush
The Jerusalem Connection ^ | July-Aug, 2007 | Larry Cohler-Esses

Posted on 08/03/2007 7:08:12 PM PDT by Salem

Bush and OlmertEvangelical Split Over Israel Batters Bush
By Larry Cohler-Esses
The Jewish Week

Evangelical Christians, long seen as a monolith in lockstep support of Israel, publicly fractured last week as two significant evangelical factions lobbied President Bush with criticism of Israel from opposite points of view.

For the first time, Christians United for Israel, a major Christian Zionist group with strong ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, lobbied President Bush against the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a solution advocated by Israel, the Bush administration and the pro-Israel Washington lobby itself.

Meanwhile, some 30 Evangelical leaders, including prominent activists and intellectuals, publicly lauded Bush’s stand in favor of two states: Israel and a seperate state in the West Bank and Gaza for Palestinians. They also urged Bush to get involved more actively to make this happen. But this group pointedly noted that both Israelis and Palestinians “have committed violence and injustice against each other.”

The two groups’ dueling letters to the president, each critical of Israeli policies from respective viewpoints, marked a new, more complex phase in evangelical Christianity’s political stand towards Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, observers and partisans from all sides agreed.

The letter from Christians United for Israel, whose leader, Pastor John Hagee, was a keynote speaker at AIPAC’s Washington policy conference this year, lectured Bush, “Simply stated, land for peace is a failed policy of the past that has produced nothing but more war. Under the current circumstances, we feel a two-state solution would be unwise.”

Rev. Hagee’s letter, signed by himself and 50 other CUFI ministers, marked the well-funded new group’s first official effort against Israeli and U.S. policy. It was a step that Jewish groups that have worked with CUFI had earlier worried about and came just one week after its own national conference in Washington, where key officials sounded a similar theme. Representing a key constituent of Bush’s base, CUFI’s White House lobbying is likely to compel administration attention.

Josh Block, a spokesman for AIPAC, declined to comment on the letter saying he had not had a chance to read it. But Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said CUFI’s stand should not cause Jewish groups to waver in their welcome of the group’s support.

“Do I have a problem with Hagee on his one-state stand?” he said. “Yes.

But he’s entitled . . . . He does not make his support of Israel at this time conditional on Israel accepting a one-state solution.”

In contrast, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest of American Judaism’s religious streams, said that by embracing Hagee, as many Jewish groups have done locally and nationally, “We are thereby embracing a radical position that will ultimately discredit Israel, not strengthen it. We are embracing a faction that says no to concessions; no to a two-state solution.”

In an opinion piece in The Forward last May, Yoffie charged that Jewish groups, particularly Jewish federations, have embraced CUFI under the influence of large contributions to federation fundraising campaigns by groups under Hagee’s control.

The CUFI letter arrived at the White House just one day ahead of the letter from 30 other Evangelical leaders in support of the Israeli and U.S. two-state position. That letter, organized by Ronald Sider, head of Evangelicals for Social Action, stated: “We affirm your clear call for a two-state solution. ... We also write to correct a serious misperception among some people, including U.S. policymakers, that all American evangelicals are opposed to a two-state solution.”

In lobbying Bush against a two-state solution, CUFI, which portrays itself as a staunch defender of Israel, set itself in clear opposition to the Jewish state’s official policy. But the writers of the second letter also upheld the value of criticizing Israeli policies in other respects, noting, “As evangelical Christians we embrace the biblical promise to Abraham: ‘I will bess those who bless you.’ And precisely as evangelical Christians committed to the full teaching of the Scriptures, we know that blessing and loving people (including Jews and the present state of Israel) does not mean withholding criticism when it is warranted.”

The letter stated: “Both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate rights stretching back for millennia to the lands of Israel/Palestine. Both Israelis and Palestinians have committed violence and injustice against each other.”

The letter deplored the “tragic cycle of violence” which, it said, could be ended only through a negotiated agreement that would require concessions by both sides and “robust leadership” from Washington.

In a response quoted by The New York Times, Rev. Hagee appeared to excommunicate the pro-two-state writers from Christianity: “Bible-believing evangelicals will scoff at that message,” he said.

Asked why Jewish groups were embracing Rev. Hagee, who opposed Israel’s two-state policy, while the signers of the second letter enjoyed no such cache, Foxman said, “I’d say they’re new to advocating support for Israel. They’re even-handed in their approach to a two-state solution. But all of a sudden for them to surface on this issue is a little surprising.”

Rabbi Yoffie said, “I don’t agree with every word of that letter. I thought it came off as much too evenhanded, though that may not have been their intent. It read like there was equal fault on both sides. There is not. The Palestinians bear the bulk of the blame for the current situation.”

But Rabbi Yoffie lauded the letter’s “fundamental point about a two-state solution. That’s the political reality in America, in the Bush administration and with the government of Israel. There is no disputing that, even if you have issues with the tone of the letter.”

The letter signers include, Leighton Ford, a prominent evangelical minister; Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, one of the county’s leading Evangelical schools; and Robert A. Seiple, who served as Bush’s special ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom earlier in his administration.

One of the signers, Gary M. Burge, is author of “Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians,” a book strongly critical of Israel and sympathetic to the Palestinians.

The two letters come just a few months after Janet Parshall, a prominent fundamentalist radio personality long known for her support of Israel, publicly broke with the Christian pro-Israel movement for other reasons. Last March, Parshall dropped out of a Jerusalem conference sponsored by a Knesset caucus advocating ties with the Christian Zionist movement after the caucus condemned evangelization of Jews in Israel.

“I thought, wait a minute. We can’t just blindly support Israel,” she said then in a public statement. “We have to be able to tell them as a friend, you can’t do that. You can’t silence us.”

Israel, said Parshall, was telling the movement, “We’ll take your aid, your support and your tourist dollars, but we won’t take your Jesus.” She criticized the Christian Zionist movement for what she termed “a kind of blind support that says no matter what Israel does, Israel can do no wrong” and charged that some leaders in the movement fostered a belief that Jews could be saved outside of Jesus. “That’s not true,” she said.

Richard Cizik, vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said that Parshall’s view was “gaining traction” in the evangelical world. “That’s a common argument nowadays,” he said. “I hear that a lot.”

Like others, Cizik also said the two letters to Bush last week reflected a deepening split within evangelical Christianity with underpinnings more theological than political. CUFI, with its staunch stand against those advocating territorial concessions by Israel, tended to attract believers in an apocalyptic endtimes scenario involving the Jewish state, he said. Those associated with the other letter tended not to see the modern state of Israel as as being implicated in end-time scenarios but subject to standards of justice no different than any other state.

In this end-time scenario, derived from interpretations of parts of the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible, the return of Jesus must be preceded by the ingathering of all Jews to Israel, defined by its biblical borders. This is to be followed by an international conflagration centered on the Jewish state that will result in the slaughter of all but a fragment of the Jewish people. This fragment will then convert to Christianity with the second coming of Christ.

Because of these beliefs, said Cizik, “They out-Likud the Likudniks. I think they’re more adamant about the land than Israel itself.”

Indeed, in a short video documentary of CUFI’s conference last week by left-leaning journalist Max Blumenthal, many participants invoked such end-times beliefs when asked why they supported Israel.

But Ret. Army Gen. Jim Hutchens, CUFI’s Mid-Atlantic regional director, disputed the generalization.

“There are dispensationalists in our movement,” he acknowledged, using the theological term referring to those who believe the apocalyptic scenario involving Jews and Israel is being played out today with the modern Jewish state. “But not all who support Christian Zionism are dispensationalists. Christian Zionists don’t support Israel based on a speculative end-time scenario in the future, but based on God’s [biblical] covenant with the people of Israel in the past.”

Hutchens also stressed that CUFI was “non-conversionist.”

“Conversion is not our goal,” he said. “Our goal is to support Israel in matters related to biblical issues.”

Hutchens also charged that the signers of the pro-two-state letter were “supercessionists,” a term referring to those who believe that with Christ’s arrival, God’s biblical covenant with Israel was replaced by His covenant with the Church.

“Most of the people [who signed the opposing letter] regard Israel like they would any other Third World country that should be treated like anyone else who’s rejected Jesus Christ as messiah,” he said. “It [the letter] fails to recognize God has an inviolable covenant with the Jewish people, and it includes the land.”

Sider, who organized the pro-two-state letter, replied, “I have no idea what all the people who signed our letter would think on supercessionism.”

More importantly, he stressed, “We’re not in any way anti-Israel. We want Israel to have a secure base as a secure nation; and also the Palestinians. That will only happen with strong U.S. involvement.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Israel
KEYWORDS: adl; aipac; christians; cufi; evangelicals; israel; jews; proisrael
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last
To: Salem

bttt


61 posted on 08/05/2007 6:12:49 PM PDT by Guenevere (Duncan Hunter for President 2008!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

To: F15Eagle

John 16:
yet a time is coming when the one who kills you will think he is offering service to God


63 posted on 08/05/2007 9:20:55 PM PDT by pacelvi (Islam is the acid that will dissolve the nation-state and led to the total breakdown of civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle


Free Version:

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm


64 posted on 08/05/2007 9:21:42 PM PDT by pacelvi (Islam is the acid that will dissolve the nation-state and led to the total breakdown of civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: tabsternager

Every Anti-Semite needs to read Romans.

Romans 11
Israel’s Rejection not Complete nor Final
11:1 So I ask, God has not rejected his people, has he? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew! Do you not know what the scripture says about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 11:3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars; I alone am left and they are seeking my life!” 1 11:4 But what was the divine response 2 to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand people 3 who have not bent the knee to Baal.” 4

11:5 So in the same way at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 11:6 And if it is by grace, it is no longer by works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace. 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was diligently seeking, but the elect obtained it. The 5 rest were hardened, 11:8 as it is written,

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,

eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear,

to this very day.” 6

11:9 And David says,

“Let their table become a snare and trap,

a stumbling block and a retribution for them;

11:10 let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see,

and make their backs bend continually.” 7

11:11 I ask then, they did not stumble into an irrevocable fall, 8 did they? Absolutely not! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel 9 jealous. 11:12 Now if their transgression means riches for the world and their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full restoration 10 bring?

11:13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Seeing that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 11:14 if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them. 11:15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 11:16 If the first portion 11 of the dough offered is holy, then the whole batch is holy, and if the root is holy, so too are the branches. 12

11:17 Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in 13 the richness of the olive root, 11:18 do not boast over the branches. But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 11:19 Then you will say, “The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 11:20 Granted! 14 They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but fear! 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. 11:22 Notice therefore the kindness and harshness of God – harshness toward those who have fallen, but 15 God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; 16 otherwise you also will be cut off. 11:23 And even they – if they do not continue in their unbelief – will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 11:24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree?

11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, 17 so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel 18 until the full number 19 of the Gentiles has come in. 11:26 And so 20 all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion;

he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.

11:27 And this is my covenant with them, 21

when I take away their sins.” 22

11:28 In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers. 11:29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. 11:30 Just as you were formerly disobedient to God, but have now received mercy due to their disobedience, 11:31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now 23 receive mercy. 11:32 For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all. 24

11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how fathomless his ways!

11:34 For who has known the mind of the Lord,

or who has been his counselor? 25

11:35 Or who has first given to God, 26

that God 27 needs to repay him? 28

11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever! Amen.


65 posted on 08/05/2007 9:24:58 PM PDT by pacelvi (Islam is the acid that will dissolve the nation-state and led to the total breakdown of civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Not me- but you should stop your hostility.


66 posted on 08/06/2007 9:24:27 AM PDT by juliej (vote gop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

I don’t think I’m your problem. But that says it all, doesn’t it?


67 posted on 08/06/2007 9:59:47 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle; juliej; Salem; Zionist Conspirator
The major purpose of the posted article - written as it is in a Jewish publication - is to attempt to drive more of a wedge between the Jewish and fundamentalist Christian communities, using the "red meat" issue of Israel to inflame tensions.

The author appears to be a leftist Jew who is all too willing to split the fundamentalists into those in favor of a one-state and those in favor of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestian conflict. He insinuates that the former is somehow anti-Israel, because the two-state solution is "official Israeli policy" and that the latter views Israel as nothing particularly significant among the world's nations. The thrust of the message to the Jewish readership is that neither group is a true ally of Israel, brought home stronger by the reference to the "apocalyptic endtimes scenario."

The author's true left colors are betrayed by the refernces to and quotations of Jews such as Foxman, Yoffie, and Max (son of Sid Vicious) Blumenthal, all of whom would like nothing better than for the Christian right to disappear as a political force in the US. But it is these leftist Jews who do not have the best interests of Israel in mind. What is not mentioned is that such a weakening of the Christian right would grease the skids for a dramatic shift in US policy away from Israel.

68 posted on 08/06/2007 10:24:23 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
The major purpose of the posted article - written as it is in a Jewish publication - is to attempt to drive more of a wedge between the Jewish and fundamentalist Christian communities, using the "red meat" issue of Israel to inflame tensions.

Unfortunately, no one needs to drive a wedge. The "official Jewish leadership" (as opposed to actual Jewish leadership in the Gedolei-HaDor) hate Fundamentalist Protestants because Fundamentalist Protestants still think of Jews as rustic Theocratic goatherds (and that's meant as a compliment!) rather than as "trouble-making" medieval dissidents. This is not to imply that authentic Jewish leadership also doesn't have some (perfectly legitimate) problems with Evangelicals, but they certainly don't use them as scapegoats in order to pretend that "we Jews have always been pro-gay."

The author appears to be a leftist Jew who is all too willing to split the fundamentalists into those in favor of a one-state and those in favor of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestian conflict. He insinuates that the former is somehow anti-Israel, because the two-state solution is "official Israeli policy" and that the latter views Israel as nothing particularly significant among the world's nations. The thrust of the message to the Jewish readership is that neither group is a true ally of Israel, brought home stronger by the reference to the "apocalyptic endtimes scenario."

The notion that opposition to "official Israeli government policy" is anti-Israel is sheer balderdash. After all, the secular state founded in '48 is based on alien un-Jewish ideologies and I have no trouble advocating its replacement by a Torah Theocracy. As for the pro-two state Evangelicals, I have little use for them myself, and suspect they do indeed consider Israel just another country (which it isn't).

The author's true left colors are betrayed by the refernces to and quotations of Jews such as Foxman, Yoffie, and Max (son of Sid Vicious) Blumenthal, all of whom would like nothing better than for the Christian right to disappear as a political force in the US. But it is these leftist Jews who do not have the best interests of Israel in mind. What is not mentioned is that such a weakening of the Christian right would grease the skids for a dramatic shift in US policy away from Israel.

For the most part I agree. Though it must always be remembered that if Kelal Yisra'el were to return to their Father in Heaven they wouldn't need the United States or even its Fundamentalist chr*stian community. To believe that events happen only according to the natural laws of realpolitik and are not governed in every detail by Divine Providence is rank heresy.

69 posted on 08/06/2007 10:57:40 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Lo' tishma` 'el-divrey hanavi' ha hu' 'o 'el-cholem hachalom hahu'; ki menasseh HaShem 'etkhem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

You are absolutamente correct!


70 posted on 08/06/2007 12:49:20 PM PDT by juliej (vote gop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
I think US Jews have finally succeeded in hamstringing evangelical support for Israel.

No US Jew truly concerned about Israel's survival would try to "hamstring" evangelical support. It's only the part of the Jewish left which is atheistic and anti-Israel that attempts to drive a wedge between Jews and Evangelicals on Israel. The author of the posted article is an example. So are Eric Yoffie and Max (Son of Sid Vicious) Blumenthal.

BTW, the tactic of Bloomy Jr., sneaking into an evangelical conference and trying to get Rev. Hagee to say something into Max's microphone that Max can put up on YouTube to make polical hay on the left, is repulsive.

71 posted on 08/06/2007 3:21:44 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
re: No US Jew truly concerned about Israel's survival would try to "hamstring" evangelical support. )))

That 86% vote for anti-Israel candidates, and spend as much time,or more, fretting over the perceived offensiveness of evangelicals as they do over deadly bombings... says what it says. US Jewry has turned its face away from Israel.

72 posted on 08/06/2007 4:17:45 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
That 86% vote for anti-Israel candidates...

If you mean to say that Jews voted 86% for 'Rats in the last congressional election in '06, that figure has been shown to be inaccurate, since it was based upon too few voters in heavily 'Rat districts. A more accurate figure was something like 74-26 in favor of the 'Rats.

As much as I detest the 'Rats in general, one can't overgeneralize and say that all their candidates are anti-Israel. However it is common knowledge that the few people in Congress who are definitely anti-Israel tend to be overwhelmingly Dummycrats. But those tend to represent heavily black and/or Hispanic and/or Muslim districts, not districts with sizable Jewish populations.

It is true that many Jewish voters don't care to see, or don't care, that the election of a Dummy majority in Congress harms the Bush Administration's War on Terror, and that can only accrue to the detriment of Israel and the whole western world. I would agree that too many are just addicted to the 'Rat pack.

73 posted on 08/06/2007 8:51:51 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
The only Dem I know that is authentically pro-Israel is Leiberman. The others give lip service once in a while--and they're not going to stick their necks out for Israel any more. And watching his primary defeat was highly edifying--it was the single biggest public relations disaster for Israel, ever, as it showed that supporting Israel is a political loser in Connecticut. Connecticut!! Yes, I know that he eventually won as an independent...

But that's because he got conservative Republican support. The liberal (vast majority) Jews in Connecticut are Democrats--!

It's such a bitter irony that Dershowitz writes such passionate support of Israel, but will fight equally as passionately to elect Hillary Clinton. He's not an idiot...he knows she'll stand by and watch Israel twist in the wind.

I'm old enough to remember when a whiff of anti-Israel policy was political death for either party. How does it look, politically, now? Republicans are finding out that supporting Israel is tantamount to getting called a religious kook.

We have seen our last pro-Israel American president.

74 posted on 08/07/2007 8:32:25 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Salem

Does anyonme know how “evangelical” the pro ‘2 state’ are?


75 posted on 08/07/2007 4:47:28 PM PDT by PRePublic (Islamic Hamas kidnapped Johnston & then "freed" him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PRePublic; SJackson; yonif; Simcha7; American in Israel; Slings and Arrows; judicial meanz; ...
"Does anyone know how “evangelical” the pro ‘2 state’ are?"

That is the new challenge genuine Evangelical supporters of Israel and their Jewish friends will be contending with in the near future. The radical faux-religious left has high-jacked the term "Evangelical". Below is a re-constructed email from a friend as we discussed the same issue. Many on this list are already familiar with these trends.

'in this thread again.


[Begin]

...I think we need be careful in using the word Evangelical when we refer to Christians supporting Israel. We really need a new word since evangelical has been hijacked, as has sustainable, green, gay and pot. There is a movement known as "Progressive Christians" or "Open Christianity" these are words of search on Google. Among this group is Jim Wallis and his Sojourners, supporters of the United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink, etc. Jim Wallis referes to himself as an Evangelical. They do not support Israel. Barak Hussein Obama and Oprah are also part of the Progressive Christianity movement.

http://www.openchristianity.com/progchr.htm

Check it out. See Wikipedia for Progressive Christianity to get started.

U.S. Religious Leaders Find Hope in Iran, Report on Meeting with Iranian President, Religious Leaders

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=p&NewsID=5768

Jeff Carr, Chief Operating Officer for Sojourners/Call to Renewal, returns from trip with plea for “true and lasting” peace with Iran

Washington, D.C. – (Monday, February 26, 2007 ) A delegation of U.S. religious leaders returning from a week-long trip to Iran held a press conference in Washington, D.C. today to brief reporters on their meetings with the Iranian president and Iranian religious leaders. This is the first religious delegation to meet with an Iranian president in Iran since the revolution in 1979. Their prepared statement can be found below.

The 13-person religious delegation, which included Jeff Carr , Chief Operations Officer of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, traveled to Iran to encourage a dialogue in the hope of averting a war. Delegation members discussed with government officials the political situation inside Iran, Iranian foreign policy, and Iran ’s nuclear energy program. In the coming weeks, the group will meet with members of the U.S. Congress, informing them of what the delegation heard from leaders in Iran and suggesting ways to begin lessening current tensions.

“I am convinced that the only path for a true and lasting peace with justice will require that we find a way to tell our stories and to have our stories heard,” said Carr. “Then we must begin to write a new narrative together, one that comes out of humility, mutual respect, and shared understanding. May God help both our nations and peoples to begin the healing and reconciliation process so we may avoid war and build that lasting peace.

In addition to Carr of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, the delegation that visited Iran from February 17-25 included representatives of Mennonite, Quaker, Episcopal, Catholic, and United Methodist churches, as well as the National Council of Churches and Pax Christi in Washington, D.C.

# #

Sojourners/Call to Renewal is a Christian ministry whose mission is to articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world. Visit www.sojo.net, www.RedLetterChristians.org, and www.GodsPolitics.com. For more on the Iran delegation, visit www.irandelegation.org.

For a media advisory on the March 16th Christian Peace Witness for Iraq visit www.Christianpeacewitness.org. The Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, organized by a broad cross section of Christian denominational peace groups and organizations, is expected to be the largest peace gathering of Christians expressing opposition to the war since it began four years ago.

Read at the February 26 press conference:

U.S. Religious Leaders Find Hope in Iran

February 25, 2007

As Christian leaders from the United States, we went to Iran at this time of increased tension believing that it is possible to build bridges of understanding between our two countries. We believe military action is not the answer, and that God calls us to just and peaceful relationships within the global community.

We are a diverse group of Christian leaders that include United Methodists, Episcopal, Baptists, Catholics, Evangelicals, Quakers, and Mennonites who have 17 years of on the ground experience in Iran . We were warmly welcomed by the Iranian people, and our time in Iran convinced us that religious leaders from both countries can help pave the way for mutual respect and peaceful relations between our nations.

During our visit we met with Muslim and Christian leaders, government officials, and other Iranian people.

Our final day included a meeting with former President Khatami and current President Ahmadinejad. The meeting with President Ahmadinejad was the first time an American delegation had met in Iran with an Iranian president since the Islamic revolution in 1979. The meeting lasted two-and-a-half hours and covered a range of topics, including the role of religion in transforming conflict, Iraq , nuclear proliferation, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What the delegation found most encouraging from the meeting with President Ahmadinejad was a clear declaration from him that Iran has no intention to acquire or use nuclear weapons, as well as a statement that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be solved through political, not military means. He said, “I have no reservation about conducting talks with American officials if we see some goodwill.”

We believe it is possible for further dialogue and that there can be a new day in U.S. – Iranian relations. The Iranian government has already built a bridge toward the American people by inviting our delegation to come to Iran. We ask the U.S. government to welcome a similar delegation of Iranian religious leaders to the United States.

As additional steps in building bridges between our nations, we call upon both the U.S. and Iranian governments to:

* immediately engage in direct, face-to-face talks,

* cease using language that defines the other using “enemy” and religious leaders,

* promote more people-to-people exchanges including members of Parliament/Congress, and civil society.

As people of faith, we are committed to working toward these and other confidence building measures, which we hope will move our two nations from the precipice of war to a more just and peaceful settlement.

Signed,

Iran Delegation

Building Bridges

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Building%20Bridges.html
The religious left goes to Iran.
By Mark D. Tooley
Weekly Standard
02/19/2007 12:00:00 AM

LAST SUNDAY, 13 U.S. church officials left for Iran to meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and build a "bridge of peace" between the two countries.

"I think we can be a bridge that doesn't exist otherwise," United Methodist lobby official Jim Winkler told his denomination's news service. ""We are trying to change U.S. foreign policy from one based on confrontation, domination and intimidation to one of peace and cooperation and diplomacy."

The delegation was organized by the Washington, D.C. lobby offices of the Quakers and the Mennonites and is a follow up of sorts to a meeting that several dozen religious officials, including Winkler, had with Ahmadinejad in New York last October. This time, the group will also meet with former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami , who spoke at the Episcopal Church's National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. in September.

Besides Winkler, the Quakers, and the Mennonites, the delegation to Iran includes representatives from the National Council of Churches, Sojourners (Jim Wallis' evangelical-left group), and Pax Christi , a liberal Catholic group.

"We are making this trip hoping it will encourage both governments to step back from a course that will lead to conflict and suffering," explained a Quaker official, Mary Ellen McNish , general secretary of the American Friends Service Committee. But the delegation acknowledges that Ahmadinejad's unsavory positions may have to be confronted.

Mennonite Central Committee official Ron Flaming fretted to his denominational news service that "there is great risk that our goal to encourage improved relations between the people of Iran and the U.S. will be overshadowed by the controversy surrounding President Ahmadinejad ." The "controversy" of course is the Iranian president's frequently expressed desire to destroy Israel and skepticism about the existence of the Holocaust.

The Quaker official, McNish, promised that the group would continue to "engage" Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust, as they had in New York . "These statements make it difficult for Americans to believe that a constructive dialogue is possible," she admitted. The United Methodist official, Winkler, pledged that he would urge the Iranian president to "temper his remarks and change his views on a number of things."

But even more importantly, Winkler and the others want to avert any U.S. military action against Iran . "Obviously we were not successful in heading off a war in Iraq, but I didn't want to say therefore there was no possibility of doing the same for Iran ," Winkler told United Methodist News Service. "I feel ever more strongly that we ought to do what we can to stop war from taking place." Winkler had joined an ecumenical delegation that visited Iraqi officials in Baghdad right before the U.S. led military action in 2003. "So where do you have avenues for conversations?" he asked. "I think faith leaders and particularly Christian leaders have an opportunity for that kind of dialogue that doesn't otherwise exist."

"We are making this trip hoping it will encourage both governments to step back from a course that will lead to conflict and suffering," the Quaker official likewise explained. "As Christians we are called to talk with those we are in conflict with and move toward forgiveness and reconciliation. We pray this will open doors to diplomacy." Similarly, the head of the Episcopal Church's Washington lobby office, Maureen Shea , said she is praying that their delegation, of which she is a member, will open "new doors" and "will lead us to peaceful resolution of our differences, not conflict."

Interestingly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) officials, who participated in the October meeting with Ahmadinejad, are not part of this trip to Iran . At the New York meeting, they had been relatively aggressive in confronting the Iranian president over his Holocaust denial, or at least they reported they had been through their denominational news service. The Presbyterians were stung by Jewish criticism of their divestment policy against Israel , which the Presbyterians revoked last year. Evidently in the interest of restoring their interfaith ties to Jewish groups, and avoiding further widespread criticism, the Presbyterians are taking a pass on this next stage of bridge building with the Iranians.

THE ECUMENICAL DELEGATION is meeting not just with Iranian government officials but also Iranian Evangelical Protestant leaders, the archbishop of the Armenian Orthodox Church in Iran, and Muslim religious leaders in the city of Qom . Evangelicals in Iran have been especially victimized by the Iranian theocracy's restrictions against religions other than the state's preferred brand of Shiite Islam. The denominations represented on the delegation have been almost entirely silent about the Iranian regime's policies of religious persecution.

For that matter, these denominations have been fairly silent about all Iranian human rights abuses. Iran 's sponsorship of professional Holocaust deniers, Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel , and Iran 's nuclear weapons program have been so high profile that denominational prelates have had to address these concerns. But even in the case of the nuclear program, their critique of Iran has been in the context of universal nuclear disarmament, rather than admitting that nukes controlled by apocalyptic Shiite theocrats represent a uniquely unsettling prospect.

So the almost exclusive focus of this church mission is to forestall U.S. military action against Iran. The church officials plan to meet with members of Congress upon their return. Sojourners official Jeff Carr, who is part of the delegation, recounted on his Sojourners website commentary the story of recently meeting an Iranian woman in America who imploringly asked him: "Do you think the U.S. will attack my country?" He wants to assure her not, of course. And the focus on this ecumenical trip, organized by pacifist churches, is not to defang the Iranian threat, but to influence the ostensibly destabilizing and threatening policies of the United States.

Mark D. Tooley directs the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy.


76 posted on 08/07/2007 7:01:59 PM PDT by Salem (What can men do against such reckless hate? ... Ride out with me. Ride out and meet them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle; SJackson; yonif; Simcha7; American in Israel; Slings and Arrows; judicial meanz; ...
" I think US Jews have finally succeeded in hamstringing evangelical support for Israel."

Well, shoot. Guess we'll just pack up our Bibles and head home. Sorry, Jews, you're on your own.

















Haaaahaaa haaaa haaa!!  !

Just kidding.

77 posted on 08/07/2007 7:15:15 PM PDT by Salem (What can men do against such reckless hate? ... Ride out with me. Ride out and meet them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Valin

Christians United for Israel, a major Christian Zionist group with strong ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, lobbied President Bush against the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
I see no other practical solution. Now if only the Palestinians would get on board.”
_________________
Well, everything Rice and Bush have done to this point in the Roadmap with Potholes has certainly failed big-time. The Muslim crowd won’t be happy until Israel is shoved into the sea...it’s naive to think diplomacy is going to change that eons old philosophy.


78 posted on 08/07/2007 11:24:20 PM PDT by cowdog77 (" Are there any brave men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Salem

” I think US Jews have finally succeeded in hamstringing evangelical support for Israel.”

LOL, not in this family.


79 posted on 08/08/2007 4:15:52 AM PDT by Grunthor (Why kill them with kindness when you can use an axe?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Salem

Thanks Salem!

-The radical faux-religious left has high-jacked the term “Evangelical”.-

BUT if you look at the meaning of Evangelical it can just mean • ‘zealous in advocating something.’ (as in not necessarily Christianity)


80 posted on 08/08/2007 4:31:45 AM PDT by texasgil (-Most people think everything is just what they assume.-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson