Thinking Outside the Blog

Anti-Semitic Jewish Authors' Connection with Stephen Sizer

2011-11-10T15:00:00.000-08:00

Recently I posted a blog entitled, An Open Letter to Messianic Leaders and Congregants, in which I issued a wake up call for messianic Jewish followers of Jesus to take note of the growing anti-Israel movement slithering its way through evangelical Christianity. The blog was re-posted on various blog sites such as the messianic Jewish Rosh Pina Project.

The majority of feedback I received was positive and encouraging.

One of the comments I received on Thinking Outside the Blog was from a Christian brother who suggested I read a list of books by Jewish authors who appeared to be anti-Zionist and part of the political Left. In attempting to provide a response, I came across some research done on several of these Jewish authors and discovered these writers are more than anti-Zionist. To my shock I found out several of these Jewish individuals are anti-Semitic. I'm not even sure if the person who offered me the reading list of Jewish authors was even aware of this fact.

One of the authors listed was Israel Shamir who wrote a book called Galilee Flowers. Shamire claims to be Jewish but several sources I came across doubted his Hebraic background. Only his mother knows for sure.

What we can gather from different sources is that Shamir a.k.a. Adam Ermash or Joran Jermas is a Russian born anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. Michael Moynihan, editor of Reason.com contributed an article entitled, "Assange's Extremist Employees," in which he demonstrates Shamir functions as WikiLeak's content aggregator. Shamir is responsible for selecting and distributing the cables to the Russian news organization.

Moynihan, no fan of Shamir, recounts Shamir's views about the Holocaust. The WikiLeak official has called the Auschwitz concentration camp "an internment facility, attended by the Red Cross," not a place for extermination. Shamir told a Swedish journalist (and fellow Holocaust denier) that "it's every Muslim and Christian's duty to deny the Holocaust. The Jews, he says, are a "virus in human form" and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is real.

I would assume that any Christian would not want to be associated with Shamir in any official capacity. Yet in a blog entitled Stephen Sizer's Friends I was disappointed to read that Sizer, Vicar of Christ Church has his books and website listed by Shamir.

I know if I had a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite promoting any of my writings or websites, I would make a public statement to distance myself from that individual. I have yet to find Pastor Sizer make any such comments. In addition, the blog Seismic Shock features an article, "The Neo-Nazi, the Pro-jihad priest and Stephen Sizer" that presents proof of Sizer's additional connection with Shamir. Someone can make an argument that it's unfair for me to tag Sizer as guilty of being an anti-Semite because of his association with Shamir. However, until I discover a public statement by sizer disavowing any connection with Shamir, I am compelled to believe the Vicar is quite comfortable with the association.

Another author mentioned in the suggested reading list given to my by a ThinkingOutsidetheBlog reader is Gilad Atzmon, the author of The Wandering Who? In an article by Alan Dershowitz "Why are John Mearsheimer and Richard Endorsing a Blatantly Anti-Semitic Book?", the well-known attorney recounts how anti-Israel activists have shunned Atzmon due to his extreme antisemitism. Dershowitz writes,

At least ten authors associated with the Leftist publisher that published The Wandering Who? have called on the publisher to distance itself from Atzmon’s views, explaining that the “thrust of Atzmon’s work is to normalise and legitimise anti-Semitism.”

Hard-core neo-Nazis, racists, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, on the other hand, have happily counted Atzmon as one of their own. David Duke, America’s premier white supremacist, has posted more than a dozen of Atzmon’s articles on his website over the past five years and recently praised Atzmon for “writ[ing] such fine articles exposing the evil of Zionism and Jewish supremacism.”

Atzmon also has a connection with Shamir that is quite damaging:

Israel Shamir, a Holocaust denier(“We must deny the concept of Holocaust without doubt and hesitation”) who argues that Jews ritually murdered Christian children for their blood and that “The rule of the Elders of Zion is already upon us,” refers to Atzmon as a “good friend” and calls Atzmon one of “the shining stars of the battle” against “the Jewish alliance.”

From an article in Seismic Shock I learned of Stephen Sizer's recommendation of a book Israel's Mossad Bomb Russian Plane To Kill Scientists? reviewed by the Palestine Telegraph, a news source filled with anti-Semitic articles. Palestine Telegraph is the hate publishing operation of independent Palestinian journalist Sameh Habeeb.

In a list of individuals featured over a period of time in several issues Palestine Telegraph is Gilad Atzmon who is reported as marking Holocaust Memorial Day by publishing a revolting "Israelis-are-Nazis" discourse.

Since Sizer references Palestine Telegraph in his book recommendation, it is probably safe to conclude Sizer feels

Sizer may appear to be soft-spoken, gentle and non-plussed when speaking to opponents. He even cleverly wooed Calvin Smith, a leading Christian Zionist scholar in the UK, in a recent debate on RevelationTV. By the end of the debate Smith was convinced Sizer is a nice guy who he'd like to get to know more. I think that's admirable for two Christians to want to become closer a brothers in the Lord.

Yet if Smith had more information about Sizer's connection to Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites, the King's Evangelical Divinity School professor might see things differently.

Stephen Sizer may make claims about his love for the Jewish people, but I have a hard time believing from his talks, his writings and public comments that this Christian brother is a friend of the Jewish people.

An Open Letter to Messianic Jewish Leaders and Congregants

2011-11-03T17:57:00.000-07:00

I've never written a letter like this, but I believe this correspondence is a dire necessity.

I've been involved in the messianic movement since the early 70s. I've served as a messianic pastor for over twenty five years, founded and headed a messianic organization and written numerous articles and blogs on the messianic movement. I've happily observed the messianic movement grow - sometimes to the joy of the evangelical church and other times to their chagrin.

Throughout the years I noticed the messianic movement split into two entities: the messianic congregational wing and the "missionary" model perpetrated by Chosen People Ministries, Jews for Jesus and other lesser known organizations. In light of this duality within the messianic movement we ended up with one segment distancing itself from the evangelical church while the other side remained within the churches to collect contributions to help further their efforts to bringing the gospel to Jewish people.

The bottom line is that the messianic movement has not had the best relationship with the evangelical church. In the midst of this messianic two-headed whatchamacallit , the Christian Zionist movement grew its own head, wanting nothing to do with messianic Jews but instead reaching out to the Jewish community with their overwhelming love for the people and land of Israel. Of course, many of our Christian Zionist brothers and sisters keep the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation "to the Jew first" hidden behind their backs to make their Jewish guests and dignitaries feel comfortable.

This synopsis of the messianic movement and the growing Christian Zionist community forms a necessary background to what I want to say.

Brothers and sisters -Jews and Gentile followers of Yeshua - we are in the midst of a full on effort by many of our evangelical brothers and sisters to bring an anti-Israel message into the evangelical church.
This "Evangelical Intifada" has crept into the church through several major avenues:

*Theological anti-Israel thought. Some of us are familiar with NT Wheaton professor Gary Burge and his well known publication Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians in which he claims modern Israel has no right to the land today. In a September 17, 2011 article by CAMERA writer Dexter Van Zile, a strong proponent of Israel, quotes Burge:

More ominously, under Rev. Dr. Burge’s scriptural analysis, Jews who reject Christ have forfeited their land and risk their lives by attempting to live in it. For example, on page 176, Rev. Dr. Burge interprets John 15:6 as follows: “The people of Israel cannot claim to be planted as vines in the land; they cannot be rooted in the vineyard unless first they are grafted into Jesus. Branches that attempt living in the land, the vineyard, which refuse to be attached to Jesus will be cast out and burned.Clearly, under Rev. Dr. Burge’s analysis, Jews living in Israel are transgressing limits set for them by the New Testament.

Another anti-Israel theologian is Vicar Stephen Sizer from the UK, whose writings attack Christian Zionism and Israel in favor of the Palestinians. Sizer is not only an author but an activist who has shared podiums with Holocaust deniers, pro-Hamas advocates and has spoken his anti-Israel messages in Iran.

What these evangelical theologians have in common is their dedication to use both Old and NewTestaments to demonstrate God's covenant with the Jewish people promising them the land of Israel through Abraham is discontinued and now the Lord's only covenant is with the church. Therefore, there is nothing divine about the Jewish people having returned to the land of Israel and establishing a Jewish homeland. God's only relationship with Israel is for them to accept Jesus and become Christians.

*Political anti-Israel thought. The list is rather long when it comes to the political efforts put forth by these evangelicals to support Palestinians, point out Israel's so-called injustices towards the people in the Palestinian territories, attack Israeli government policies in dealing with the terrorist threat, fail to denounce anti-Semitic rhetoric broadcasted by Hamas and Fatah and argue to discredit the validity of a "Jewish" state. I cannot do this aspect of the "Evangelical Intifada" justice.

These Christian political activists include Palestinian Christian as well as American evangelicals like Lynne Hybels, wife of mega church pastor Bill Hybels; Sami Awad, a Palestinian Christian who advocates a non-violent approach in dealing with Israeli soldiers through his organization Holy Land Trust yet his tweets point to the fact he does not support a Jewish state and British journalist anti-Zionist polemicist Ben White who is quick to label Israel as an apartheid state as he does in his book Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide (for a great response to White click here).

You can tell I've quite a list that includes organizations that claim to be dedicated to peace and non-violence yet they send out daily blurbs through tweets, Facebook posts and blogs in which they do nothing but attack Israel and try to convince evangelical Christians to not support Israel. It is only a matter of time before these anti-Zionist Christians start calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. In a recent published set of seven evangelical affirmations from the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference at Bethlehem Bible College in March 2012, the seventh affirmation reads,

The Bible teaches us to pray for all in political authority. We are called to obey them, whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, as an expression of our faith in God’s sovereign rule. We are also called to be a prophetic voice, challenging injustice creatively and non-violently.

This statement clearly sets the groundwork for BDS on the part of evangelicals spearheaded by anti-Zionist evangelicals. An affirmation like this makes one wonder whether the drafters of these affirmations will ever call for boycotts against Fatah and Hamas for their terrorist attacks on Israelis.

One more examination of these affirmations will suffice. Affirmation number 6 states:

Messianic Jews are the brothers and sisters of all who follow Jesus or Yeshua. We are one family bound together in a fellowship of love. Although diversity in political opinions as well as theological emphasis inevitably exist, we refuse to allow these views to hinder our fellowship in Jesus.

Messianic Jews are welcome to attend the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference as long as we can set aside our "political opinions" aka Zionism. If that is true, then why are the conference speakers allowed to speak against Christian Zionism, the Israeli aspirations for a Jewish homeland and Israel's policies towards protecting the citizens of Israel -Jewish and Arabs- against Palestinian terrorist attempts.

This sixth affirmation is a call for Messianic Jews to set aside our Zionistic commitment. Yet once the CATC is over, our pro-Palestinian brothers and sisters will spread out over the globe to broadcast their anti-Israel propaganda messages.

*Anti-Israel propaganda films are also being shown in churches, Bible Study groups and Christian colleges across America: Little Town of Bethlehem, featuring Sami Awad and Porter Speakman's With God on Our Side. Both films are filled with historical inaccuracies regarding the Middle East conflict, erroneous analogies comparing the Palestinian Intifada with the Civil Rights Movement in America and ignoring Islamic Palestinian terrorism aimed at Israel. Both of these films are produced with the greatest of quality but filled with the lowest of bias against Israel. When these films are shown, a panel usually follows for the sake of discussion. The two that I am aware of did not include on the panel a pro-Zionist expert.

Thank the Lord we do have several websites that address the anti-Israel evangelical crowd and we should be familiar with them: HurryUpHarry, ElderofZiyon, MEMRI, SeismicShock, RoshPinaProject CAMERA, ThinkingOutsidetheBlog and many others.

In light of what I've shared, ask yourself, "Can the messianic movement afford to stay away from confronting these books, individuals, blogs, articles, tweets, films and lectures by anti-Israel Christians committed to the Evangelical Intifada?"

It is time for the messianic movement to end the separatism that exists between the church and messianic congregations and come alongside our Christian brothers and sisters to unmask the deception being hoisted upon them by anti-Israel evangelical proponents. Organizations already in churches presenting "Christ in the Passover" or "Israel in Prophecy" need to switch gears and go beyond prophetic messages to tickle the ears of Christians and present substantive responses to the anti-Israel advocates.

I call on messianic leaders and congregants to join in this effort to not sit still while Christians once again present an anti-Jewish message from within the ranks of Christendom. This is not new to us as Jews.

Christianity has presented an anti-Semitic message from the early church fathers, has purged the Holy Land of Jews during the Crusades, tortured our ancestors during the Inquisitions, preached replacement theology in modern times and now has crafted an anti-Zionist theology to once again alienate Jewish people from their own Messiah and Redeemer, Yeshua.

Messianic leaders, I encourage heads of organizations to start meeting and compose plans to deal with the Evangelical Intifada. Dialogue with anti-Israel theologians at Christ at the Checkpoint may be advantageous for a few days, but the Christians messianic Jews dialogue with at CATC are activists not merely theologians. They are on the internet day and night sending out their destructive missiles to convince the church to turn its back on Israel.

I am willing to work with any group to do what I can to help any effort to form a serious, relentless confrontation using scholarly materials to usurp the falsehoods being foisted by the Evangelical Intifada on unsuspecting Christians.

I close with one more example. In light of the upcoming 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration in 2017 a new website has been launched as a 5 year project. The goal of the project is to "promote a series of international conferences and cultural exchanges to enable participants to engage with empathy those who have been negatively impacted by the Balfour Declaration.”

From Stephen Sizer's website it is clear from his own words that he is instrumental in the launching of this five-year project. I strongly doubt if Sizer and his cohorts will give a fair presentation of Israel's side regarding the Balfour Declaration or for that matter anything that occurred after the issuing of that document and the ensuring establishment of the State of Israel.

Can we as messianic Jews afford to be silent while these events take place? Haven't we had enough silence when the church remained closed mouthed as our grandparents and great-grandparents were demonized by Hitler and his twisted theologians.

I do not want to compare what is taking place today to the Holocaust and thereby trivializing the Shoah.

However I do want to impress upon my readers the seriousness of sitting by and doing nothing while the church is once again duped by theologians with an agenda to place all the blame of the Middle East conflict on the Jews and to paint the Israelis as evil oppressors trampling the underdog Palestinians. Sadly, Christians fall for these kinds of comparisons and images. I trust this time we are wiser and that we will heed the call to activism.

In the Messiah's grace,

Louis Lapides

Palestinian leader: Arabs erred on 1947 partition

2011-10-29T09:35:00.000-07:00

JERUSALEM (AP) — The Palestinian president says the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations' 1947 plan to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state.

President Mahmoud Abbas also told Channel 2 TV in a rare interview with the Israeli media on Friday that he and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were "very, very close" to reaching a peace agreement in 2008.

"If he stayed two, three months, I believe that time we could have concluded an agreement," Abbas said.

He confirmed reports that Olmert had agreed to withdraw from 93.5 percent of the West Bank.

Abbas also said it was not clear the Palestinians could muster the requisite nine votes in the U.N. Security Council to approve the statehood bid they submitted last month.

Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 Conference Attempts Sounding Evangelical

2011-10-26T18:27:00.000-07:00

Recently, according to Stephen Sizer, Vicar of Christ Church in the UK, the 2012 Evangelical Affirmations for the Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 Conference have been agreed upon and published. Sizer, an outspoken critic of Israel and Christian Zionism, according to his own words, is among the authors of this affirmation.

Last years drafters of the 2011 Affirmations included Paul Alexander, Christine M. Anderson, Brother Andrew, Alex Awad, Bishara Awad, Mubarak Awad, Sami Awad, Gary Burge, Tony Campolo, Steven Haas, Lynne Hybels, Manfred Kohl, Jonathan Kuttab, Paul Johnson, Salim Munayer, Stephen Sizer and producer Porter Speakman, Jr.

The affirmations for this coming year are intended to reflect the views and hopes of the organizers of the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference to be held at Bethlehem Bible College in Bethlehem March 5-9. The participants in the conference include Palestinian Christians, messianic Jews and an assortment of evangelical speakers and writers.

These affirmations state, "As Palestinian Evangelical Christians at Bethlehem Bible College, we seek to learn, through following the example of the life and teachings of Jesus, how to honor Christ and how to honor Palestinians and Israeli Jews, by accepting them as two peoples who have the right to live in justice, peace, security and dignity."

Yet as we read through the affirmations, it is clear only one entity is to blame for the Middle East crisis and it's not the Palestinians.

Here is the text of the Christ at the Checkpoint Affirmations from their website with my comments included.

Affirmation #1: Israelis and Palestinians

We affirm that all people are created in the image of God. In turn we are called to honor the dignity of every human being and to respect their inalienable rights. We affirm that Jews and Palestinians are loved by God and capable of living together within peace, justice and security. This is God’s view toward all of humanity, residing in any political boundary and manifested through the mission of Jesus in bringing to everyone, “life to the full” (John 10:10).

Affirmation #2: Theology and Land
The New Testament clearly teaches that God continues to invite Jews and Arabs into His kingdom and in no way is finished with any people group. Further, Scripture speaks of Jesus as its ultimate fulfillment. For example, the need for animal sacrifices, Levitical priesthood, and expectation of a rebuilt Temple, find their ultimate fulfillment and completion in Jesus Christ.

I find Affirmation #2 to be written in a way that permits the leadership and participants in the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference to slip in their adherence to Replacement Theology. The second affirmation reads, "and in no way is finished with any people group."

These words can be meant to say, "God is not finished with the Jewish people since He offers them salvation through their acceptance of Jesus as their Messiah." However, the statement provides freedom to the conference participants to advocate that God is no longer committed to the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant which gives the people of Israel possession and ownership of the land of Israel.

This covenant relationship does not eliminate the Palestinian from living in the land as over a million Arabs do today in Israel proper. However, to deny the continuance of the Abrahamic Covenant for the Jewish people today is a major bone of contention for theologians and individuals connected to the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference and the drafters of the 2011 Affirmations such as Gary Burge, Stephen Sizer and Sami Awad. The fact the drafters of these affirmations skirt around God's continued covenant with Israel is obvious in their refusal to believe the God of Israel would allow a temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem.

Affirmation #3: The Palestinian-Israeli conflict

As followers of Jesus Christ we regret more than 60 years of conflict. We look forward to the time when the conflict will end and both peoples will enjoy genuine reconciliation. We commit ourselves to be peacemakers and to this ministry of reconciliation. As such we stand resolutely against all forms of violence and racism, regardless of the perpetrators.

Other than in words, where are any attempts on the part of Palestinian Christians to be peacemakers towards Israeli soldiers and citizens? To affirm this agreement we would need to see Palestinian Christians condemn the use of terrorism against Israelis by Palestinian Muslims.

The terrorist Hamas group governing the Palestinian territories is committed to a doctrine in which they seek the destruction of the Jewish state and annihilation of the Jewish people. Why aren't Palestinian Christians condemning Hamas?

Instead, most of the Palestinian Christian groups in their literature and speeches place the responsibility of the Middle East conflict on Israel. Having a conference where messianic Jews are invited to speak is a drop in the ocean when it comes to the reality of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Affirmation #4: The Second Coming of Christ

There are several views which Christ followers hold to explain the future. Rather than focus on the signs of the return of Christ, our reading of the New Testament indicates that our primary mandate is to proclaim the “Good News” to the entire world.

Palestinian Christians and their supporters do not want to focus on the Second Coming since the New Testament scriptures place the people of Israel on center stage of the events of the last days as seen in Matthew 24, Mark 14 and Luke 21. Christ at the Checkpoint theologians do not want to consider Jesus as the Messiah of the Jewish people and returning to earth to set up His kingdom in Jerusalem to rule as the last Davidic King. Then they would have to acknowledge the continuance of the Abrahamic covenant with the modern state of Israel.

Affirmation #5: Zionism

Modern Zionism is a political movement created to meet the aspirations of Jews around the world who longed for a homeland. It has become ethnocentric, privileging one people at the expense of others. Christianity calls believers in Jesus to focus on building God’s kingdom on earth.

It is interesting that a group consisting largely of Palestinian Christians seeks to define Zionism without consulting Jewish sources. Rather than being a "political movement . . . privileging one people at the expense of others", the Encyclopedia Britannica defines Zionism,

Zionism is a movement of national liberation, seeking self-determination for the Jewish people within a sovereign Jewish nation located in their ancient homeland. Zionism is a direct continuation of the Biblical religious attachment of the Jews and Judaism to this specific historic holy land. Zionism is non-partisan, trans-denominational, and not related to the policies of any Israeli government.

Affirmation #6: Messianic Jews

Messianic Jews are the brothers and sisters of all who follow Jesus or Yeshua. We are one family bound together in a fellowship of love. Although diversity in political opinions as well as theological emphasis inevitably exist, we refuse to allow these views to hinder our fellowship in Jesus.

I find this affirmation hard to swallow. Vicar StephenSizer in a recent blog condemns the human rights violation by Israel towards Palestinians without placing any responsibility on Palestinian terrorists. I would have liked to see Sizer condemn the brutal attack on the Israeli family who had their throats cut in the middle of the night in the Ithamar back in March 2011. While they were sleeping Palestinian terrorists stole into the settlement, killing a husband and wife, and an 11-year-old, a 3-year-old and a baby girl. Where is Rev. Sizer's condemnation of such atrocities committed by Palestinians?

Does Sizer think this affirmation is going to smooth over the differences between messianic Jews and Palestinian Christians? Does he think messianic Jews are going to sit by in silence while any Israeli retaliation to Palestinian acts of terrorism are condemned by Palestinian followers of Christ?

In his blog Stephen Sizer quotes theologian John Stott who says of Zionism, "I myself believe that Zionism, both political and Christian, is incompatible with biblical truth." Sizer thinks he can embrace messianic Jews as brothers in the Lord while stabbing us in the back with his condemnation of Zionism - Christian and Jewish.

Affirmation #7: Palestinian and Israeli Authority
The Bible teaches us to pray for all in political authority. We are called to obey them, whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, as an expression of our faith in God’s sovereign rule. We are also called to be a prophetic voice, challenging injustice creatively and non-violently.

As I stated above, I am waiting for a prophetic voice to come from the Palestinian Christians pointing out the evils committed by their Palestinian brothers in their terrorist attacks on Israel and stop placing all the blame on the Israelis.

Will Palestinian Christians obey Hamas in desiring the destruction of the Jewish state and the annihilation of the Jewish people in Israel? I'm anxious to hear an affirmation from the Christ at the Checkpoint leadership in which they condemn the evil goals of their own government. Until these affirmations are just empty words.

Rather than seeking true peace with Israel, many in the Palestinian leadership of the Christ at the Checkpoint are mostly dedicated to bringing young American evangelicals to live among Palestinian families to indoctrinate them against Israel, produce propaganda films such as With God on Our Side to show in evangelical churches to turn Christians against Israel and produce books that attack Christian Zionism and advocate replacement theology.

It's Those Zionist Jews Again!

2011-10-17T23:12:00.000-07:00

It was bound to happen. Put a bunch of lefties together in the streets calling for revolution and soon enough someone is going to blame the Jews for all the ills of society. Ho hum!

Tonight on Fox TV News, a video was shown of a black woman, Patricia McAllister who works for the Los Angeles Unified School District being interviewed.

This misinformed woman stated that the corrupt heads of corporate banks and the Federal Reserve are Jewish Zionists who need to be run out of this country. Well, I'm a Zionist Jew and I'm not the head of a bank and I'm not leaving this country!

Why did I mention she is black? Why did she mention the heads of banks and the Federal Reserve are Jewish?

Of course, this was one voice out of hundreds of thousands who made an anti-Semitic remark. I'm not as stupid as this woman. I did read one more sign that equated corporate bank heads with the Rothchilds - another anti-Semitic comparison. A white person was holding the sign.

My point is to show my readers how ignorant people are. Here are the names of the CEOs of three major banking corporations:

Jamie Dimon - of Greek descent and Chairman and CEO at JP Morgan Chase and Company

John G. Stumpf - from Minnesota and Chairman, President and CEO of Wells Fargo and Company

Brian Moynihan - President and CEO of the Big Monster of them all - Bank of America.

Ben Bernake - Chairman of the Federal Reserve and he is Jewish! Ah ha! A Jew is behind all this corporate greed after all.

Let's speak about the significance of Patricia McAllister's statement. First, it was anti-Semitic. As an employee of the LA Unified School District, she should be fired for her antisemitism. If a white employee of the LAUSD make a derogatory comments about blacks on national TV, he or she would be canned on the spot - a boot in the butt.

Second, this woman's comments sound strangely familiar. I wonder if she's been listening to Minister Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam? Farrakhan is noted for his Jew hatred and for making similar comments about Zionist Jews.

Don't forget that Minister Farrakhan was awarded a lifetime achievement award by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of the church where President Barak Obama attended for twenty years.

Yes, I almost forgot. Out of twenty years of attendance at Rev. Wright's church, the president never heard his pastor say anything derogatory about Jewish people or America.

Last, if antisemitism starts to make inroads into the largely leftist Occupy Wall Street movement, then the Democratic Party - whose members make up the largely liberal protest - is in for a lot of trouble.

President Obama will have no choice but to distance himself from this movement lest he lose the Jewish vote and a huge chunk of his credibility as someone who does not belong in the White House.

Once again, Obama's feet will be put to the fire as he will be forced to distance himself from the beliefs of black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Rev. Wright who have made similar anti-Semitic comments to Patricia McAlllister.

I prefer not to see anti-Semitism rear it's ugly head in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Ironically, Jewish individuals have been largely associated with left wing movements - Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Karl Marx and others. Yet in the majority of situations, most left wing movements started by Jewish people end up turning against Jewish people as they are vilified and demonized as "rich Jews who control the world's banks."

Racist charges were thrown at Tea Party participants, but no one was quick enough to put the evidence on tape. As far as I am concerned, those racist comments allegedly made by Tea Party members never happened. It's also very ironic since there are a lot of black people in the Tea Party movement and many Tea Party members support the presidential bid by black leader Herman Cain.

In the case of Patricia McAllister, her hatred for Jewish people is recorded, posted on You Tube and available for everyone to watch. In fact, if you want to tell Ms. McAllister what you think of her racist stunt, here is her email address: PatriciaMcAll@yahoo.com.

Jewish Group Urges Starbucks to Take Down Anti-Israel Post

2011-10-14T16:06:00.000-07:00

SWC Urges Starbucks to Remove Misleading Middle East Posting from its Digital Network

October 12, 2011

Various members of the Simon Wiesenthal Center have alerted the SWC to this (see graphic) misleading posting on the history of the Land of Israel which ran on Starbucks Digital Network. The Center immediately contacted Starbucks headquarters.

The Center wrote in part, “…we'd like to hear from Starbucks about what steps you are taking to remove it and what steps… you'll be taking to assure that Starbucks won't serve as a platform for such material in the future.

The propaganda presentation called Palestine: A Century of Shrinking present maps that falsely assert that the historic Land of Israel belonged to the Arabs.

“The material presented on the Starbucks Digital Network is similar to other anti-Israel propaganda being promoted by extreme anti-Israel groups. We urge our members to join us in urging Starbucks not to allow itself to be a platform by extremists, “ said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, SWc Associate Dean.

Go to info@starbucks.com to let Starbucks know what you think of this, site case #7361732 in your email.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is one of the largest international Jewish human rights organizations with over 400,000 member families in the United States. It is an NGO at international agencies including the United Nations, UNESCO, the OSCE, the OAS, the Council of Europe and the Latin American Parliament (Parlatino).

For more information, please contact the Center's Public Relations Department, 310-553-9036, join the Center on Facebook, www.facebook.com/simonwiesenthalcenter, or follow @simonwiesenthal for news updates sent direct to your Twitter page or mobile device.

Starbucks Takes Pro-Palestinian Stance on Website

2011-10-11T16:03:00.000-07:00

As customary I unlatched my Mac Book Pro at my favorite Starbucks, with a Grande Iced Coffee at my side, ready for work.

Once I moved past the opening Starbucks Connection page, I was directed to a Splash page sponsored by Starbucks. Featured on the portal page was a five panel Cartographic Regression of the Map of Palestine that portrayed the idea that in 1917 only Palestinians were living in Israel at that time, which is historically inaccurate since Jewish people have always been living in the land of Israel.

The chart of maps went on to demonstrate all the land the Israelis "stole" from the Palestinians.

The accompanying text reads, "The battle over Palestine has lasted for most of the 20th century and all of the 21st, causing the region's borders to change several times over the years. Here's a look at how Palestine has shrunk since 1917."

"The battle over Palestine" is a loaded statement since the Palestinians during the 1947 UN Partition plan were offered the Transjordan as a Palestinian state, a span of land three times the size of Israel. Not until the aftermath of the Six Dat War were Palestinians even concerned about a "Palestinian state." Who are they kidding?

No explanation is offered by Starbucks/Good Politics about the 1947 and 1967 maps that the shrinking "Palestine" was due to Arab inspired and initiated attacks on the Jewish people at which time the Israelis won the land from the Arab bloc due to superior military prowess.

Starbucks is being deceptive and presenting itself as anti-Israel by featuring this misleading chart in this morning's opening portal page. Shame on Starbucks. To be fair, perhaps tomorrow's splash page should
include an historical cartograph of the terrorist attacks by individuals, Palestinians terrorist organizations and Arab nations against the civilians of Israel since 1917.

Feds To Close Down California Pot Shops

2011-10-07T15:49:00.000-07:00

I awoke this morning totally bummed knowing the NY Yankees lost the ALDS to the Tigers. And I don't want to wait to next year. I'm a Yankee fan. Next year is always NOW!

However, the headlines in this morning's Ventura County Star lifted my spirits:
FEDS TARGET CALIFORNIA POT DISPENSARIES FOR CLOSURE

Yes, I support federal law superseding the stupid state law of California that made medical marijuana legal. Now the feds are going to close down federally illegal pot shops in the land of fruits, nuts, twigs and seeds. Here is the essence of what Big Brother is going to do to medical marijuana dispensaries in CA:

'Under United States law, a dispensary's operations involving sales and distribution of marijuana are illegal and subject to criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions,' according to the letters signed by U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy in San Diego. 'Real and personal property involved in such operations are subject to seizure by and forfeiture to the United States ... regardless of the purported purpose of the dispensary.'

Plenty of reasons exist why pot shops need to be shut down.

First, the so-called doctors that prescribe marijuana for patients are mostly incompetent. I've sat in on a session where someone was getting a card to enable them to purchase pot. The doctor asked a few basic fifth grade level medical questions, took the person's blood pressure and the exam was over. The encounter with the doctor was a perfunctory procedure in order for the patient to get pot.

Second, the regulations for obtaining pot are virtually absent. I can obtain pot right now simply because I often have trouble staying asleep. I can call a medical marijuana "doctor" with the questionable diplomas on his wall, tell him I have sleep issues and in two hours, I'm toking on a doobie. But that's not all.

In another hour or so, I can go to another dispensary and buy more pot and keep repeating the same action until the clinics close for the day. What's to stop me from purchasing all the pot I want? I cannot do that in a regular medical pharmacy. If I am prescribed Oxycontin, a physician normally prescribes a 30 days supply and the patient cannot get anymore of the drug until after the thirty days are over.

Third, young adults who underhandedly obtain pot from a clinic because of "back pain" or "insomnia" often sell their stash to younger kids. If you don't believe me, call the narcotics division of your county's sheriff's department, and ask them about the illegal activity taking place with minors obtaining weed from legitimate card holders. It's a racket.

Let's be honest. People who have legitimate cards to purchase grass really just want to get high.

Pot is not the only painkiller on the face of the earth or sleep aid. The medical benefits of pot are highly contested, but the motivation to obtain pot at one of these clinics is never questioned: to get high.

Finally, I am against the legalization of marijuana period. Why? I admit I smoked grass for five years of my life or maybe more. I forgot . . . which is the problem. Pot destroys brain cells.

In addition, individuals who smoke pot at an early age usually slow down their emotional maturity process. Smoking dope stunts a person's emotional growth. Hang around a bunch of twentysomething dopers, and you'll witness this phenomenon for yourself. They laugh at everything that isn't always that funny.

The majority of pot smoker share the same personality traits. Talk the same. Laugh the same. If I was looking for Big Brother, I say look no farther than a lit joint being passed around at a party.

Neither are pot smokers the smartest bunch on the planet. School grades start to plummet once a student starts indulging with a bong.

Pot smokers are often listless, incoherent, slow in reacting while driving a vehicle (as many studies have proven) often unambitious.

The police can't really arrest someone for driving under the influence of pot since THC stays in a person's system for 30-40 days. A pothead could have smoked two joints right before entering his vehicle or he may have smoked a reefer two weeks ago and is just a bad driver.

My biggest complaint about dopers is that they are narcissistic. Their main concern is their need to get high and then relax or seek entertainment and food.

I've spoken to owners of medical marijuana dispensaries and challenged them to visit drug rehabs where kids who started smoking pot soon graduated to cocaine or a harder drug. These pot professionals could care less. I was told, "It was their choice to stop smoking pot and move on to crack cocaine" That was not the answer I was looking for. I was seeking some human compassion. Instead, I receive the same old pot smoker narcissistic answer - I don't want anyone infringing on my right to get high.

Will closing the dispensaries solve the marijuana problem here in LA? Not really. Most likely, the closure of these dispensaries will boost the sales of pot among drug dealers and black market drug cartels.

Still I applaud President Obama for taking a bold step in overriding state law to impose federal law. I think a few other presidents did the same thing throughout history, such as President Lincoln regarding the ugly sin of slavery.

If closing dispensaries serves as a deterrent to some from smoking pot, then this federal action is worth it. I've seen enough kids ruin their lives due to entering into the world of drugs through the gateway drug of marijuana.

My Tribute to Steve Jobs is My Job

2011-10-06T17:50:00.000-07:00

I started using Apple computers in 1984 when they were first made available to the general public.

For me computers were never used for play, but for work purposes. Even though I love the iPod, the iPad, the iPhone, Apple laptops and desktop computers - and I used them all - I didn't incorporate the use of Steve Job's genius for play.

With the Apple Macintosh I compiled articles and blogs and edited and organized photos.

I researched sermon materials and wrote hundreds of biblical messages using the current version of Apple's operating system. I wrote countless emails, listened to endless hours of music and once in a while I watched a YouTube video.

I changed and influenced lives through the messages and articles I wrote while using Apple computers.

Thanks to the expertise of Jobs, I never had to deal with viruses and only occasionally tinkered with a crashed PC. I learned to fix at least 90% of the problems I ran into with an Apple product. Jobs made computing easy.

When I ran out of problem solving ideas, I would break down and call AppleCare.

Apple computers have always been reliant for me and made computing fun. I read all the boring manuals and Macs For Dummies books, and soaked in everything I could using this incredible product.

To Steve Jobs I tip my hat for using his genius to not merely improve our lives, but to make it possible for a person like me - devoted to sharing the Word of God with others - to have an eternal impact.

My greatest joy was not switching from a PC to a Mac - which I never had to do. My greatest joy was switching from a Smith Corona typewriter to a Macintosh computer and never needing to switch to anything else.

As an Applephile I shall ever remain thankful to Steve Jobs. His yearly keynote speeches will be missed but knowing Steve, he used his genius once more in leaving his company in good hands.

Texting For Dummies

2011-10-04T17:05:00.000-07:00

If you're thirty years of age or younger, you're in danger of becoming a "texting dummy".

I admit I am not a heavy texter. I find it annoying and a potential source for face-paced emotionally packed misunderstandings between two plugged in iDroids.

Yet what irks me the most is the grammar and spelling errors that accompany those two liners that appear on the screen of our iPhones and Droids. Here are some examples: "What's" has become "wuts." "When" is now spelled "wen." Punctuation marks are a thing of the past. "To" is now a number.

Then there are the codes of which I know very little: AAP - Always a pleasure; AAK - Asleep at keyboard; BBS - Be back soon; ACK- Acknowledge; BOYF - Boyfriend; DF- Don't even go there; BIH- Burn in hell; BAY- Back at ya.

Recently I came across an article entitled "Uptight Texter" by Ventura County Star columnist Starshine Roshell. Ms. Roshell is a journalism professor, magazine writer and an award-winning contributor. I enjoyed Sunday's column since it "hit the spot" on one of my pet peeves: texting illiteracy.

I'm no stickler for rules — at least, not most of them. I've always favored whimsy, irreverence, and originality over propriety, decorum, and tradition. I'm the mom who lets my kids run naked in the front yard, sneaks massive snack sacks into movie theaters under my shirt, and is proud to demonstrate my belching skills at the dinner table. As I type this, I'm staring at a recent moving-violation ticket for rolling through a stop sign (I'm sorry, but some rules just beg to be broken).

Why, then, do I find myself stiffly — stubbornly — adhering to fusty old spelling and grammar rules when I'm texting my tech-savvy 8th grader?

I can't fire off a "Heads up: I'm running a few minutes late," or bang out a "How did you do on today's geometry test?" without spelling out every word in its inconvenient entirety, and punctuating each trivial missive impeccably.

Regardless of the rush I'm in — or my hair-tearing frustration over the diabolically obscured tilde and discriminatory lack of an em dash on my phone's treacherously tiny keypad — I'm incapable of embracing the medium's abbreviated style and typing "c u @home in 10".
Not to my son.

For one thing, I don't want to be perceived as trying to co-opt "his" lingo. Every generation needs its own nearly inscrutable vernacular and parents who try to clamber aboard by lauding their kids' new Vans as "sick kicks" or texting "ikr dont b a h8r g2g ttyl" only embarrass the rest of us. To me, Textese is like one of those damned pashminas that's supposed to look effortlessly twisted and tossed about the neck and shoulders; I just don't wear it well.

But the main reason for my reverent texting is plain fear. With the amount of time my kid spends communicating in abridged, thumb-pecked snippets, I'm afraid he might forget what true written English looks like.

As a writing instructor myself — who once had a student type "lol" in an essay for my class — I can't run the risk that my son might one day offer up "2b r not 2b" on a literary response.

My inner rule-thwarter has to wonder: Why should it matter? Why cling to old-fashioned practices in a modern age? If technology is rapidly evolving for the better, why can't we let language follow suit, slipping and sliding down the wide and inviting slope of casual convenience?

As a parent, I'm hoping to impart some life lessons to my son by modeling proper English in my texts. I want to squelch laziness and encourage attention to detail. I want to remind him that it's important to adjust one's communication style to one's audience — just as he ought not try to fist-bump grandma or test out fart jokes on his junior-high principal.

If I'm being honest, though, I must admit that my persnickety texting is a passionate if pathetic attempt to push back against society's increasing carelessness with the written word. On Facebook and Twitter, in emails and ads, no one seems to recall the distinction between there, their, and they're. Why else would my son's school have invited parents (I wish I were kidding) to Back to School Nite?

At the very event in question, I stealthily took a Sharpie to some anti-bullying posters in the halls that were sorely missing a semicolon; my child was mortified.

But don't you see? I don't have a choice! I may be the last holdout, the only person left unwilling to trade "Don't be late for dinner" for "dont b L8 4dnr." If I give up, who'll teach the next generation how to spell and punctuate? What happens then?

I'll tell you what: we r scrood

Pastor Rob Bell Turns Christian "Rock Star"

2011-10-03T17:40:00.000-07:00

From Christianity Today I learned author and pastor Rob Bell is stepping down from the pulpit of the church he founded, Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan. The best selling author is moving his family to the brighter lights of Los Angeles, CA.

Pastor Bell is joining the ranks of other Christian rock stars who hit the evangelical circuit with their driving metal guitars of false theology and adoring clueless fans. Rock on, Pastor Rob!

Having been a pastor in Los Angeles for over twenty six years, I can safely say Bell may either sink or swim in So Cal as he tries to broaden his audience with his controversial beliefs.

Remember . . . Bell is the pastor that ignited a hot debate over the existence of heaven and hell. But that's not all. He questions the meaning of salvation, the whereabouts of heaven and the entry fee to gain access to eternal life. After reading Love Wins I called StubHub and managed to scalp two tickets in the Loge section of the New Jerusalem Section 104, Row G, Seats 3-4.

Since LA is an eclectic playground for the likes of Rob Bell, he'll most likely fit in and then slowly fade away after he's spent a few years spraying the bullets of his drive-by false theology throughout Southern California.

According to CT Bell:

. . . will launch his "Fit to Smash Ice Tour" in Canada in November and continue the tour in the U.S. "We serve a big God and none of this is shocking to him,” WZZM reports Bell said during his sermon. “All we can do is embrace a future that is going to be brilliant."

One another bit of juicy evangelical gossip comes from CT: David Vanderveen, editor of the Mars Hill Review announced the completion of the Love Wins companion study guide due from HarperOne in November. So now the erroneous theology of Rob Bell will be propagated in more and more unsuspecting churches and among more and more clueless Christians as they study a book I call a "masterpiece of confusion and theological uncertainty."

Why should I even report on such an a potentially insignificant event as a pastor leaving a church? I admit it. I was inspired by Pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life. Upon the news that Bell is departing his pulpit to take his show on the road, Pastor Rick tweeted:

"Always less. No base 4credibility @LarsRood Do u think well-known pastors who leave their churches have more or less impact?" and "Speaking tours feed the ego=All applause&no responsibility.It's an unreal world. A church gives accountability& validity" after tweeting "Bell resigns."

Thank you, Pastor Warren. Now it all makes sense. Without any accountability to a church board and without any need for validity from older and wiser Christians, Rob Bell can let his theology all hang out.

Rob Bell, the Christian rock star has arrived, tight leather pants and all. I can see it now - speaking tours sprinkled across the U.S. as adoring fans scream for more theological junk from an ego driven former pastor from Mars Hill Bible Church.

The good news? Once Bell leaves Mars Hill Church, perhaps they will hire a pastor who will help them put the word "Bible" back into the name of the church.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Arafat Attempted to Free Murderer of RFK

2011-09-28T17:43:00.000-07:00

In 1994 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East". However, let me share a little known fact about the PLO leader that deeply affects our country.

On June 5, 1968 Palestinian Christian Sirhan Sirhan shot and ended the life of democratic presidential hopeful Senator Robert F. Kennedy in the ballroom at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, CA.

Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian-born Jordanian, opened fire with a .22-caliber revolver. Kennedy was hit three times and five other people also were wounded.

Sirhan was sentenced to life imprisonment and is currently serving his term in solitary confinement at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California.

Let it not be forgotten that Sirhan shot RFK during the one year anniversary of the Six Day War involving the Arab nations of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq against the nation of Israel. Due to his hatred of Israel and RFK's strong support of Israel, many historians have concluded Sirhan's motives are found in his anti-Israel sentiments.

What's most astounding is that according to Mel Ayton's book The Forgotten Terrorist, he records that in 1973 Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat and soon to be named Nobel Peace Prize winner, ordered the kidnapping of three American diplomats. Arafat offered them in exchange for Sirhan, the murderer of a potential American president!

When President Nixon refused the offer, according to Ayton, the PLO leader ordered the diplomats be tortured and then murdered. During a private dinner with Romanian President Nicolai Ceausescu, Arafat took credit for the slayings of the three U.S. diplomats.

One cannot ignore Arafat's response to the cold blooded murder of pro-Israel presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, was to free the murderer. When his offer for a prisoner exchanged was refused by an American president, this "man of peace" murdered three of our diplomats.

The stance of the Palestinian Authority today has not changed since the days of Yassar Arafat. Their stated goal is to deny the legitimacy and destruction of the Jewish state and to reject any diplomat's efforts to persuade the Palestinian governing authority to recognize the state of Israel.

As Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas plead this week before the U.N. for the acceptance of Palestinian statehood without the Palestinian recognition of the legitimacy of Israel, I could not erase the memory of the bloody roots of this would-be nation; a nation founded by a gun-toting terrorist, Yassar Arafat, and presently ruled in part by the terrorist regime of Israel-hating Hamas.

Introducing Scripture Solutions

2011-09-27T15:15:00.000-07:00

People have asked where they can obtain copies of my sermons, links to articles and updated information on projects I am involved in. To fulfill these requests, ScriptureSolutions.com is a new website I am launching today.

ScriptureSolutions.com contains many of the messages I have given over the past years. These are sermons that are biblically based and centered on giving the listener wise and easy-to-follow responses to God's word.

I have a strong convictions the Word of God is being neglected in many pulpits today and too much erroneous theology is being taught by individuals who dare to call themselves teachers of the scriptures. In the name of progressive theological thought the Bible is taking a beating by those who are subjecting the biblical text to their own thinking rather than place their own thinking in submission to the precious Word of the Lord.

As a result of errant teaching Christians are hearing messages that question the basic tenets of the faith regarding the authority of the Scriptures, salvation, the person of Christ, Jesus' second coming and the relationship of Christianity to other religions. The church is suffering from the poor teaching of a new generation of Christian "intellectuals" who question conservative Christianity in favor of a more progressive, emergent brand of the faith.

Young, biblically uneducated followers of Jesus are being duped by the teaching of today's misguided Christian intelligentsia and I am deeply concerned. Hence, the need for ScriptureSolutions.com.

In addition to my commitment to the expository teaching of the Scriptures, I provide a strong emphasis on the Jewish background of the Scriptures in my messages. Many passages in the New Testament have been wrongly interpreted by well-meaning biblical scholars due to their lack of sensitivity to the first century Jewish influence on the New Testament. Let us not forget the majority of the New Testament was penned by Jewish followers of Jesus who remained committed to their Jewish roots and customs.

Currently, a strong opposition to the preeminence of Israel exists in the teaching of both evangelical traditional and left leaning progressive theologians. The list of theologians who fail to see God has a present-day plan for the Jewish people is growing.

A need exists to take a stand on the biblical importance of Israel from both the Jewish Scriptures and the New Testament. Apart from any political commitment to Israel or due to the fact Israel is America's only democratic ally in the Middle East, the Bible is clear on God's unending commitment and covenants He has made with Israel.

Furthermore, since I have earned two master degrees in Old Testament and Semitic Languages, I am devoted to focusing on the continuity of the Jewish Scriptures with the New Testament. Too many teachers of God's word either omit preaching from the Old Testament, use the Old Testament merely as a resource to prove the Messiahship of Jesus or fail to see the value of the Jewish biblical text as profitable for today's Christians.

It is my conviction the Old Testament text must be understood first as though there is no New Testament. With that deep comprehension of the Jewish text, the expositor needs to bring New Testament truth as a light to bear on the older covenant.

One cannot start with the New Testament and work backwards to interpret the Old Testament. Instead, the Old Testament principles must be understood first before interpreting the New Covenant.

Replacement theologians who believe the church has superceded Israel and all the promises God made to Israel has been fulfilled in the Church are commonly deficient in Old Testament theology. These biblical academicians ignore Old Testament passages that contradict their erroneous view of Israel evidenced through the blurry lens through which they interpret the New Testament.

In a strong sense, Scripturesolutions.com is also an apologetics website - a messianic research institute of biblical theology. Please feel free to re-post the blogs you find to be helpful in defending the faith to others. Suggestions for additional articles are always welcome.

ScriptureSolutions.com will grow as I add more sermons, write more resources, share new projects and grow in my own understanding of the messianic faith.

My goal is to shape ScriptureSolutions.com into a refuge for an individual to utilize where they can be sure they will be hearing messages based on the centrality of the biblical text and not religious gimmicks or contemporary, unbiblical trends that sweep through the church like a tornado leaving the wreckage of innocent lives in its path.

ScriptureSolutions.com should be a haven for individuals who are not committed to Christianity, but are searching and asking questions.

If churches or groups want to invite me to come speak or present a series on a contemporary topic, ScriptureSolutions will provide an avenue to contact me.

I close with the mission statement of ScriptureSolutions.com with the hope you'll visit the site over and over, read the blogs, download the messages and share your comments:

Recognizing the lack of a biblical focus in many churches and ministries throughout the United States, Scripture Solutions is dedicated to an expository perspective on the Word of God as communicated through the sermons and printed materials of Louis Lapides.

In addition, Scripture Solutions has set its sights on shedding light on much of the questionable teaching in today’s congregations and seeks to enlighten believers about false doctrine permeating Christianity both on an individual and corporate level.

Major League Adball

2011-08-15T16:23:00.000-07:00

I love baseball but I despise anything that takes away from the purity of the game. Steroids. Gambling. Scandals. Strikes. You name it.

During this past Sunday's afternoon game between the cellar-hugging Houston Astros and the barely surviving Los Angeles Dodgers, I was excited to witness three home runs slugged into the stands by several Dodgers. One of those home run champs was Bellflower native Justin Sellers, whose contract with the Dodgers was just purchased this week. What a joy to witness a young rookie hit his first career home run. Now that's baseball purity at its finest.

Yet when centerfielder Matt Kemp shot his 28th homer out of Dodger Stadium, I noticed an impurity take place inside the stadium. Amidst the usual home run fanfare with dazzling lights and loud music, the center field scoreboard started flashing the words, "State Farm." I was confused. I thought Matt Kemp hit the ball out of the park not State Farm.

Dodger Stadium 8/14/11 iPhone Photo

Then on the cascade that runs around the stadium below the Loge seats, the following bright letters were flashing alternately to the delight of the fans: "Home Run - State Farm Matt Kemp - State Farm."

I wondered to myself, "Is State Farm on the Dodger roster? Does manager Don Mattingly know this? Who is State Farm? Why is his name being flashed on the main scoreboard along with Matt Kemp's?

And one other thought. I don't want to be thinking about auto insurance while watching Matt Kemp run around the bases.

The only conclusion I can come to is that State Farm Insurance wants the fans to associate their company with a home run. Their thinking must be: "As you enjoy this four bagger hit by a member of your home town team, remember State Farm insurance is the home run of all the insurance companies. Hit one out of the park by calling State Farm as you leave Dodger Stadium today."

I was resentful, and on top of everything . . . I have State Farm for my car insurance!

Major League Adball is going too far by brazenly ruining memorable baseball moments by pushing products in our faces while we're trying to soak in the game. Who wants to be bombarded with ads for pistachio nuts or Wetzel's Pretzels after the third baseman makes a diving catch and manages to throw out the runner heading into first base?

My suggestion is to only play the ads in between innings just like they run ads in between segments during TV shows.

I don't want to watch no-hitters or perfect games peppered with commercials for upcoming movies. I'd rather enjoy the tensions associated with with the game of professional baseball.

Sorry to say this, State Farm, if I didn't already own your product, I would intentionally avoid buying it because you ruin home run moments. I'm just too lazy to switch insurance companies and I happen to like my agent.

As the baseball season is starting to wind down my prediction for the World Series involves two of the following four teams: American League: Boston Red Sox or the New York Yankees. National League: San Francisco Giants or the Philadelphia Phillies. Regardless of who wins, I surely don't want to see a State Farm ad being flashed on the stadium scoreboard when the World Series team is finally crowned.

McInerney Trial Reveals What's Wrong with America's Culture Part 2

2011-08-12T12:40:00.000-07:00

There's a lot wrong with America right now. From the moral failures of politicians, religious leaders, educators to blue collar workers, we are witnessing an unprecedented disintegration of values affecting every aspect of life in the good 'ole USA.

The McInerney trial unfolding in a courtroom in Chatsworth, CA is a prime example of America's moral breakdown.

In my last blog I discussed the failure of O. E. Green Middle School officials to step in and do their job when they witnessed acts of unwanted sexual advances by 14-year-old gay student Larry King towards15-year-old heterosexual male student Brandon McInerney.

Whether or not King's actions led to his fatal shooting by fellow classmate McInerney, we'll never know. King's flamboyant homosexual behavior and feminine clothing may have nothing to do with his tragic death. However, we cannot squelch the fact that school officials knew a volatile tension was building in the school between King and other students. In step with the breakdown of values in this country, the O. E. Green school staff did nothing to intervene.

Fingers are pointing at Assistant Vice Principal Joy Epstein for not doing her job of enforcing the California educational code regarding sexual harassment in the case of Larry King. Epstein, a lesbian, was more concerned with gay rights than she was in the safety of O. C. Green Middle School student. With Epstein the gay rights agenda took precedence over the greater value of protecting a student who was crossing the line with his display of sexuality. Epstein did nothing to enforce the school dress code in the case of the gay student though King's teacher's complained about the student's outlandish behavior.

According to Brandon's history teacher, Arthur Saenz, the day before King was shot, Brandon displayed a lot of anger and rage in his conversation with his friends. It might have been due to the fact King had asked Brandon to be his valentine, and McInerney's friends were making fun of him.

While McInerney was raging to his friends on the school grounds, Assistant Principal Epstein surveyed the scene, and according to Saenz, Epstein wagged two fingers at Brandon and said something about "rights." Was she supporting King in his unwanted sexual advances towards McInerney? Would she have done the same thing if a heterosexual girl was being sexually taunted by one of the boys? Furthermore, what does sexual harassment by a gay student have to do with "gay rights"? As you can see, Epstein's favoritism towards King is very explosive as well as another example of our moral breakdown.

Saenz was asked in the Chatsworth courtroom if he thought King was sexually harassing Brandon, why did he fail to report it as required by state law. "I thought Ms. Epstein was handling that. She's an administrator and it is her job to handle that situation, not mine," said Seanz.

Not all fingers should point at O. C. Green Middle School. A dark deep shadow is also cast over the McInerney family and their failure to protect Brandon.

According to the August 4th edition of the Ventura County Star, Brandon's half brother James Bing testified that Brandon was sexually abused as a child by a cousin.

Billy McInerney, Brandon' step-father, now deceased, expressed his belief after the shooting that his son shot King because of the abuse.

Unfortunately, the abuse Brandon McInerney experienced did not stop with his cousin taking sexual advantage of the boy. Bing also detailed instances of physical abuse that Billy McInerney would level on his stepsons, including putting Tabasco sauce in their mouths while they slept and beating them with a bar of soap inside a sock.

When Brandon's half brother was asked by Maeve Fox, Ventura County senor deputy district attorney, why nobody ever called police over the sexual abuse, he responded, "He's still family."

The commitment to protect the family unit was more important than protecting Brandon from a sexually perverse relative. Hence, another example of the breakdown of values in America. but now in the family unit.

Assistant Vice Principal Dawn Epstein and James Bing are guilty of the same failure to protect the innocent in order to support another set of personal priorities - gay rights or family reputation.

On Thursday August 5th Brandon's aunt Megan Csorba, sister of Billy McInerney testified her brother would sit on his son until he couldn't breathe, pull his thumb back until he screamed and punch him in the face.

Brandon's aunt added that the boy's step father would verbally abuse his son, berating him and calling him names. Billy McInerney, according to his sister, was often smoking pot and popping pills. The abuse of his son would grow worse when he was on drugs. Csorba also testified that Kendra, Brandon's mother smoked crystal methamphetamine when she was pregnant with Brandon.

The real kicker came when when Fox asked Csorba if she ever called the authorities after witnessing the abusive craziness at the house. "No," the aunt commented. "I was going through my own abuse, and I was not going to do that to my brother." Another adult who failed to act in a mature, responsible fashion and report abuse that was happening to a minor. She'd rather protect the abuser and ignore the victim.

If you put this all together, it's clear that a group of adults were passing the buck, protecting themselves and making decisions out of total self interest.

Teachers failed to report King's overtly gay dress because they were concerned about their tenure and being politically correct about their views on homosexuality. These teachers had no problems giving special treatment to Larry King because he was gay. The same treatment was not offered to heterosexual students when they broke school dress code rules.

Finally, we witness family members who dropped the ball on reporting both physical and sexual abuse taking place to one of their family members. Instead, they chose to protect the abuser out of a need to protect the reputation of a seriously dysfunctional and amoral family.

Is there something wrong with values in America? If you look hard enough into the details of the McInerney case, you can't help but notice this trial is a microcosm of the loss of values in America.

McInerney Trial Reveals What's Wrong with America's Culture Part 1

2011-08-05T18:21:00.000-07:00

Chatsworth Courthouse

I can't stop reading about the McInerney trial currently being tried in Chatsworth, CA. This case is so important as a commentary on our culture of tolerance.

Brandon McInerney, 17 is charged with murder and a hate crime in connection with the death of gay student Larry King. Both boys attended O.C. Green Middle School three years ago at the time of the murder.

As the trial unfolds in its fifth week, more data is being disclosed about the McInerney family, the behavior of Larry King and the poor oversight exercised by the E.O. Green Middle School staff. Most significant is the more we learn about the players in this senseless crime, the more we are faced with the lack of values in our society and how it has hurt us.

Special Privileges Given to Minority Groups Have Backfired
Larry King, according to Susan Crowley, King's seventh-grade special education teacher, "desperately wanted to be liked, but he didn't have the social skills to get along with his peers." King showed up to her class wearing a pink scarf. When he was told to remove it, he defiantly came to school the next day wearing jewelry and makeup.

Crowley surmised King's flamboyant clothing was designed "to draw negative attention to himself." She remarked that former Assistant Principal Joy Epstein was not being truthful when she claimed King's behavior was being adequately addressed by the school staff and according to Epstein "only a small minority of people were bothered by King's clothing". We find out from additional testimony that Epstein's perspective is sadly skewed.

E. O. Green Middle School is a California public school - not a place to display or "test case" one's sexual orientation. Larry King did not come to school for the education but to educate others about gay rights in the way he behaved.

During Monday's trial, Crowley was asked if she thought Assistant Principal Epstein, a lesbian, empowered King. Crowley answered yes.

Since King's feminine dress was well known among teacher and administrators, it's evident Epstein ignored the complaints about the disruptive behavior King was causing. Why? She provided special privileges to a child that was of her same sexual persuasion.

E. O. Green's Assistant Principal was acting out of self interest as a gay person, She was more concerned with the issue of "gay rights" than performing her job as an educator and administrator.

Another teacher, Shirley Brown, a seventh grade instructor, argued in court Epstein was not addressing the issue of King's behavior and its impact on students.

Epstein put her gay lifestyle first. How tragic that she could not see King as a human being crying out for help.

To make matters worse, Jill Ekman, King's seventh=grade English teacher tried to get King to not call so much attention to himself. When she saw King wearing makeup in the eight grade, she told him to remove it.

To no avail, King came to class the next day wearing more makeup. King claimed Assistant Principal Epstein had given him permission to wear the makeup. She told him it was within his constitutional rights to do so.

Face it, Larry King was pushing his homosexual identity in the faces of his fellow student and a lesbian Assistant Vice Principal was backing him up.

An email was also sent out from the school office instructing teachers that Larry King's attire was allowed. The email directed E. O. Green teachers to instruct their students to become more tolerant. This did not stop King from disrupting other students.

What if a heterosexual girl came to school exposing herself and trying to grab attention. She'd be disciplined.

Gay rights within the context of a school or working environment stop at the door where certain rules are ignored to make one's homosexuality the central focus. This is not homophobic, but an observation of the behavior of Larry King and the failure of the school to treat him like any other student.

Sexual Harassment Even by A Gay Person is Not to be Tolerated
Larry King took his sexual orientation another step further than just his clothing.

Jill Ekman told the court that the boys in the Middle School were having problems with King. The boys who had any connection with King were being called gay. At a time in the life of a young man when masculine identity is important being called gay can be devastating. Like it or not, this is how it is in Middle School. No amount of taxpayer financed, state supported classes in the public school about homosexuality are going to change that,.Boys will be boys.

In another incident Ekman explained there was a rumor going around the school that King asked McInerney to be his valentine. She also pointed out boys complained to her that King was chasing them into the bathroom. King laughed when the teacher warned him that his behavior was inappropriate. Emboldened by the Assistant Vice Principal, King felt his behavior was acceptable.

Ekman went to Epstein to complain about King's advances towards other boys [aka sexual harassment], but Epstein closed the door on her informing the teacher there was nothing she could do about it.

Regardless of Epstein's personal sexuality, she has a duty to take any reports of sexual harassments or unwanted sexual advances among the students seriously.

This is how far our culture has come with the issue of gay rights. People are afraid to comment when a person's rights turn into privileges that break rules everyone else must adhere to. Even in a case where a gay student is sexually harassing his peers is being ignored.

No one will ever know how much the special treatment afforded to Larry King was a contributing factor leading to his tragic shooting.

How are Christians Living in the Palestinian Territories Treated?

2011-08-04T16:35:00.000-07:00

What about the fate of Christians living under the rule of the Palestinian Authority?

At a 2009 Vineyard National Leadership Conference in Galveston, Texas, Palestinian Christian Sami Awad, founder of the Holy Land Trust told his evangelical audience the Christian population in the Palestinian territories is shrinking.

In the area governed by the PA, 27,000 Christians live among 3 million Muslims. Mitchell Bard in his book Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, agrees with Sami Awad that the "proportion of Christians in the Palestinian territories has dropped from 15 percent of the Arab population in 1950 to less than 1 percent today."

Sami Awad, in his Vineyard speech did not qualify why the Palestinian Christian population is dwindling. He leaves his hearers with the implication the Israeli soldiers bear the brunt of the blame.

Sami seems to forget that when Muslim authorities have control in whatever Arab country they reside, Christians do not always fair well. So tell me, Sami, how is it the Christian population in Israel proper is growing if the "Israelis are to blame for the shrinking Palestinian Christian population?"

The Christian population declined 29 percent in the West Bank and 20 percent in the Gaza Strip from 1997. Does it have anything to do with the fact Christians are generally unwelcome in Arab countries dominated by Muslims. Even today Islamic extremists are burning Coptic churches in Egypt as a sign of their disgust towards Christianity.

A 2004 NY Times article reported how Palestinian Christians were leaving Bethlehem and other historically Christian towns in the West Bank. Unsurprisingly, the article pinned the blame for the Christian exodus on the Israelis:

Four years of violence, an economic free fall and the Israeli separation barrier have all contributed to the hardships facing Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem, one of the largest concentrations of Christians in the region.

The Times piece failed to give the real reason for the Christian migration - official and unofficial Muslim discrimination against Arab Christians, amid a rising tide of Islamism in the Palestinian territories. Sure, it's possible the economic problems in the West Bank and the Israeli security wall have contributed to Christians leaving the Palestinian territories. Yet it must be noted the Christian population is dwindling in the rest of the Islamic world as well.

Like Sami Awad the NY Times article did not mention the Christian population within Israel's borders is growing. In the period 1995 – 2003 Israel’s Arab Christian population grew from 101,400 to 115,700, a growth rate of 14.1 percent. Today there are 145,000 followers of Christ living in Israel!

Sticking out like a sore thumb Palestinian Christians like Sami Awad do not want to treat is the fact Palestinian Christians are the victims of Islamic violence in the PA. A 2002 Boston Globe article underscored the fact Christians in the Palestinian territories are not safe:

... details were emerging of a rampage of Palestinian Muslims against Christian shops and churches in Ramallah after a road-rage slaying last Thursday.

... police made no attempt to stop the mob, which besieged and damaged a widely respected youth center associated with the Boy Scouts of America after torching the Christian properties. Palestinian police and security agencies finally stepped in when the rioters moved on local churches.

... "The truth is this is a problem between Christians and Muslims," said one Christian businessman. "There is no security for us. Everyone is taking the law in his own hands.

... "This [accused] man's brother, they burned his house, his shops, his cars, and the police of Ramallah stood by and watched. This is the democracy of Palestine?" .. "The chief of security at Kalandia was in charge of this rampage," said a Muslim shopkeeper. "The mayor of Ramallah came, saw what was happening, and withdrew. I am a Muslim, but I condemn this. These are savage people."

"We do not have democracy; we do not have security," he said. "The fault is with our leaders and our society. We need to clean up our society."

Additional information on how Palestiniann Christians are treated in Palestinian controlled areas is found in a report compiled by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs written by David Raab entitled The Beleaguered Christians of Palestine Controlled Areas.

Sami Awad must be asleep when he points his finger at Israelis for causing the migration of Palestinian Christians from the territories. Awad has a lot of explaining to do when he trashes the Israeli military for treating his people so poorly when Palestinian Muslim vigilantes are taking the law into their own hands and heaping havoc on the Christians. Sami would rather make the IDF the culprit for their problems since they are an easier target. Do you blame him?

Knowing this information, we see how bad Palestinian Christians look when they attempt to pin all the blame for their problems on the Israelis. They are even willing to buy into the thinking that says the Palestinians are victims of the Jewish state "much like Jesus Himself."
Even PLO leader Yasser Arafat tried to do a makeover on the historical Jesus to transform Him into the first radical Palestinian armed freedom fighter or fedayeen.

Today Bethlehem Bible College is calling their 2012 conference Christ at the Checkpoint: Hope in the Midst of Conflict. The name of the conference Christ at the Checkpoint depicts the Jewish Jesus as a Palestinian under scrutiny at an Israeli IDF checkpoint. How absurd! Jesus was never scrutinized by military authorities in his day for carrying weapons or having a bomb strapped to His back. What a slap in the face to Christianity and the biblical significance of Christ.

Don't forget the official religion of the PA is Islam. The PA has not stopped Islamic clerics giving speeches in mosques in the Palestinian territory in which they brand Christians (and Jews) as infidels. What comfort does a Palestinian Christian have listening to the violent military Islamic rhetoric and actions of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbolleh?

I doubt if Sami Awad would go around to pastors conferences in the U.S. complaining about the Muslim's treatment of Palestinian Christians for fear of retaliation. Mum is the word for Sami when it comes to the harassment Palestinian Christians experience from the Isalmic thugs who plunder the property of Christians under the watchful eye of the PA (Maariv, 12/24/01).

Sami failed to tell his gullible Christian audience that when the Palestinian War started in 2000 Palestinian Muslims attacked Palestinian Christians in Gaza. Many Muslims at that time viewed the Palestinian Christians as a fifth column for Israel. Christians are not treated so great in Palestine - a fact Sami Awad does not want to speak of lest he stir American Christian animosity towards Muslims.

Why didn't Awad speak of the anti-Christian graffiti found in Bethlehem claiming, "First the Saturday people (the Jews) then the Sunday people (Christians)." Christian cemeteries have been defaced, monasteries have had their phone lines cut and break-ins at convents have occurred in the PA territories. Palestinians Christians live under pressure from Islamic extremists to swear loyalty to the PA and to support the attacks against Israel.

Awad preaches to the Vineyard crowd that as a Christian he is to "love his enemies", the Israeli soldiers. He never actually tells how he shows love to Israeli soldiers patrolling in the Palestinian territories. In light of the injustices shown by Muslims towards Christians, Sami and the non-violent evangelicals need to show the love to the radicals in his own Islamic backyard of three million Palestinian Muslims.

Perhaps the reason why Sami Awad does not speak out against mistreatment committed by Islamic activists against Christians is that he does not possess the freedom to do so? Sami and his Palestinian Christian brothers do not enjoy the freedom enjoyed by Christians who live in Israel and therein lies the great contradiction fostered by those like Lynne Hybels, Dr. Gary Burge, Colin Chapman, Don Wagner and so many other evangelicals who foster theological hostility towards Israel.

Is Israel At Fault for the Shrinking Palestinian Christian Population?

2011-08-03T17:26:00.000-07:00

At the 2009 National Vineyard Leadership Conference in Galveston, Texas, Rich Nathan, Senior Pastor of the Vineyard Church of Columbus in Ohio, gave a talk on Learning to Love Your Enemies in the Middle East.

Nathan, a Jewish follower of Jesus, has made a dramatic change in his life by rejecting his Zionist prophetic interpretation of the Bible in "pursuit of Jesus' kingdom ministry." What this means is that Nathan has embraced a theology that is hostile towards Israel in the name of advancing the kingdom of God.

During his seminar Rich invited Palestinian Christian Sami Awad, who is working with Palestinians and Israelis to bring healing to the Middle East conflict. Awad, raised under the violence connected to the disputed Palestinian territories, is now leading a movement that encourages Palestinians Christians to love the Israelis soldiers in order to bring about reconciliation.

During the course of Nathan's interview, Sami strongly blamed the diminishing population of Palestinian Christians due to the Israeli presence ever since 1848. Awad shared that the biggest loss he has experienced while living under "Israeli occupation," is a hope for the future. His options are now limited due to the presence of the Israelis. The only option in occupation, says Awad, is to leave. Therefor, since the Palestinian Christians are living in a state controlled by Israelis, they have no other choices other than to leave the country. The Palestinian Christians are victims of the situation.

Is Awad telling the entire truth when he speaks to American evangelicals, the majority of whom have little knowledge of the history of the Israeli/Palestinians conflict?

Let me try to iron out some of the wrinkles in Awad's thinking and anti-Israel propaganda he's spoon- feeding to evangelicals.

Prior to 1948 before the War of Independence, the percentage of Palestinian Christians living in the Palestinian territories was 30% but now the percentage is less than 1.5%. Today 1.2 percent of the population in the Palestinian territories is Christian.

Nathan claims this diminishing of Palestinian Christians is due to Israeli policies mostly supported by the United States especially Christians. Nathan wrongly claimed, "We as Americans supporting Israel displaced an entire population of Christians."

I'm not trying to ignore the shrinking population of Christians in the territories, but Awad uses this fact as a means to make Israel appear intolerant of Christians. This is so typical of writers, speakers and others who have an anti-Israel stance. They are quick to point out Israel's alleged faults, but fail to mention the fact Christians are extremely unwelcome in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia. The practice of Christianity in Saudi Arabia is illegal!

Yes, Christians are a minority in Israel, but it is the only Middle Eastern country where the Christian population has grown in last 60 years!

In 1948 there were 34,000 Christians in Israel and now there are 145,000 followers of Christ in the Holy Land. Could it be because Christians find more freedom to practice their faith in the Jewish state than in any other Islamic state?

If Sami Awad wants to bash Israel for the shrinking Christian population in the disputed Palestinian territories, then he should also acknowledge and applaud the growing population of Christian believers in the Israeli state. This is my biggest problem with Palestinian Christians. It's not what they state about Israel; it's what they leave out in their attempts to demonize Israel.

This week at church I was handed a prayer list of suggested prayers Christians should pray for Muslims during their Ramadan fast. One of the prayers stated, "Pray that Muslims as well as Christians will show due respect for the 'holy places' of other religions." I thought it was an odd prayer since it assumed Christians and Jews are not showing respect for Muslim places of worship in the Middle East. Recent history tells us that Israelis and Christians have shown the most respect towards one another's sacred sites.

In the holy city of Jerusalem Christians churches have maintained custody of the Christian holy places ever since the Ottoman Empire. These rights known as the "status quo arrangement for the Christian holy places in Jerusalem" still remain in tact today.

If my memory of history serves me well, it was the Palestinian terrorists during the Palestinian War 2000-2005 that took over Christian holy places as locations to launch their armed attacks against Israeli soldiers. One example took place when Palestinians fighters hijacked the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem causing a tense standoff. These radical Islamics staged their attack on Israeli soldiers from one of the holiest locations for traditional Christians. Where was the outcry from evangelicals and mainline denominations back then?

Also, let it not be forgotten that it was during Jordan's control of the Old City from 1948 to 1967 that Christian rights were violated. Israeli Christians were barred from visiting their holy places by the Jordanians. Jewish worshippers were also prevented from visiting the sacred Western Wall, the only remaining section of the Herod's temple in Jerusalem.

When the Israelis defeated the Jordanians and released their grip on Jerusalem's holy sites, both Christians and Jews had access to their respected places of worship. During the 1948-1967 period the Christian population declined from 25,000 to 12,646. Since 1967 the Christian population has grown exponentially thanks to the Israeli forces. I wonder why?

Critics of Israel will point to the security fence has hurt Christians living in East Jerusalem. At the same time these critics fail to mention that the fence was constructed in order to protect Christians. When Palestinian terrorists attack, their bombs show no discrimination between Christians and Israelis. The security fence was never meant to be a tool to persecute Christians but to save their lives.

Sami Awad and supporters of the Holy Land Trust have a long way to go to prove Israel is responsible for the shrinking population of Palestinian Christians. Tomorrow's blog asks, "How are Christian Living in the Palestinian Territories Treated?"

The McInerney Trial: The One That Should've Grabbed Our Nation's Attention

2011-07-30T16:37:00.000-07:00

While viewers sat transfixed watching the Casey Anthony trial on their TVs, Smartphones and iPads, a more significant case was brewing in Ventura, California.

The McInerney trial currently being tried in Chatsworth due to the pretrial publicity in Ventura, has all the sensationalistic makings of the Casey Anthony case minus the attractive mother accused of murdering her daughter.

In the Brandon McInerney case we have a growing list of hot issues:
•the 2009 murder of a gay teen in front of his fellow students during a lab class
•a 17-year-old being tried as an adult for a hate crime murder
•a flamboyantly gay middle school student permitted by school authorities to wear inappropriate gender-bending clothing to school
•the suspicious connection of a murder suspect to the Silver Strand Locals, an Oxnard white supremacist gang known for its hatred of gays
•an increasing roster of state employed teachers more concerned with their tenures than making correct decisions regarding the safety of their students.

Brandon McInerney is being tried for the February 12, 2008 murder of gay student Larry King during a lab class at E.O. Green Middle School in Oxnard. In plain sight of at least 100 students, while some were snickering at King's feminine clothing, McInerney shot King in the back of the head two times.

Brandon McInerney

According to the 2008 article in the Ventura County Star, "McInerney is charged with murder and a hate crime in connection with the classroom shooting. King, an eighth-grader from Oxnard, dressed in a feminine manner and told friends he was gay. McInerney faces a sentence of 51 years to life if convicted of all the charges."

It would seem this would be an open and shut case. However, during the case which completed its fourth week, other important issues are grabbing center stage.

•King, for several weeks prior to the shooting, started to wear suede high-heel boots, tight girl's jeans and eye shadow to school.

According to the VC Star King's clothing was becoming an increasing distraction and disruption during school hours. According to California Education Code 48900.2 a student who is charged with “disrupting school activities or willfully defies valid authority” can be suspended. Why wasn't King disciplined by school authorities?

During the court proceedings, King's former teacher Dawn Boldrin and her assistant admitted they did nothing about the fact King was violating school rules. Boldrin suspected King's clothes were outside the mandated dress code and asked her assistant to look into it. Nothing further was done by the teacher.

If a girl is wearing a revealing top or tight fitting jeans or a short skirt, the school administration would've most likely sent her home or demand she wear a gym sweatshirt the rest of the school day to cover her up. Several students rightly complained King was receiving special treatment.

Should I state the obvious? King was given a pass because he was a gay teenager and his teachers were fearful of offending him or being called a homophobic. What other reason would there be to enforce dress code rules for heterosexuals, but not for a homosexual teen? Isn't that discrimination against heterosexual students?

•King's teachers were negligent out of self-protection. King's teacher Dawn Boldrin admitted she did not want to say anything about King's dress,"I was not tenured at that point and didn't want to make a wave," she admitted under oath.

One wonders if Boldrin and the school administration had demanded King start wearing gender appropriate clothes to school whether the tragic outcome could have been avoided.

No, King's clothing and gay lifestyle does not excuse McInerney for his vicious hate crime, but perhaps his anger may have been abated if the school took proper measures consistent with the way they treat other students. Just wondering.

In another related incident King asked Anne Sinclair, a special-education teacher, if he could use the restroom. Sinclair said no. Meanwhile, King who was standing, had his mid-section inches away from a sitting student's face.

Sinclair described this incident as sexual harassment - a violation of section 212.5 of the California Education Code. King made the incident even worse when he started doing a dance moving back and forth on his legs indicating his need to use the bathroom.

Asked why the special education teacher did not report this act of sexual harassment, as required by state law, she answered, "Other times, when I tried to report things, it wasn't being addressed. And I was not tenured at that point and I was looking out for my tenure, to be perfectly honest."

Like Boldrin, this state employee was thinking more about her tenure and retirement than the welfare of a student on the receiving end of sexual harassment.

How surprising since other Ventura County schools such as Conejo Valley Unified School District schools will cite a student who uses sexting with sexual harassment and report the student to the police for distributing child pornography - whether they are the perpetrator or on the receiving end.

Once again, a case can be made Larry King was given special treatment because he was gay. His teachers wanting to save their tenure and not want to be politically incorrect by reporting a homosexual student may have contributed to a series of incidents that fueled McInerney's hatred for King.

•King's teacher also gave the middle school student a homecoming dress. How can a female teacher give one of her male students a dress? Was she condoning King's gay clothing in the context of school, and if so, why wasn't she disciplined for this action? Did she ask King's parents permission before giving the boy such a controversial gift?

Is this another case where a gay person is given a pass out of fear by his superiors who want to avoid being labeled anti-gay? Can a male heterosexual teacher give one of his female students a dress? What if a male teacher gave a female pupil a blouse that was revealing?

The McInerney case is far from over. It has yet been proven whether McInerney belonged to a white supremacist gang known as the Silver Strand Locals or that gang is racist.

Despite all these issues, McInerney is guilty of committing a hate crime and murdering Larry King in cold blood in front of numerous witnesses.

Let's not forget the school administration should still be on the witness stand for their special treatment of a student because of his sexual orientation . . . a treatment that would not be given to a heterosexual pupil.
We may never know how much their negligence fueled the hatred of McInerney towards King despite the fact the 17-year-old bears full responsibility for the death of his fellow student.

Nakba Day Holds Key To Lack of Peace in the ME

2011-07-29T18:34:00.000-07:00

What is Nakba Day? I myself never heard of it until recently, and yet I discovered this Palestinian "Day of Mourning" holds the key as to why there is no end to the Middle East conflict.

Nakba Day occurs on May 15th, the day after the Gregorian calendar date for Israel's Independence Day. In Israel, Nakba Day events observed by Arab citizens have been held on Yom Ha'atzmaut (Israel's Independence Day), which is celebrated in Israel on the Hebrew calendar date (5 Iyar or shortly before or after).

While Israelis are celebrating their Day of Independence, on Nakba Day Palestinians are mourning the establishment of Israel. Mitchell Bard, in his book Myths and Facts : A Guide to the Arab/Israeli Conflict suggests, "Had the Palestinians . . . accepted the UN partition resolution in 1947, the state of Palestine would have been celebrating its birthday" (pg. 257).

Al Nakba means "The Catastrophe" referring to the creation of the State of Israel. Yet what Palestinians complain about the most is the "occupation" of the territories Israel captured in 1967 after three Arab nations (Syria, Jordan and Egypt) threatened to destroy Israel and drive the Jewish people into the sea. If the "occupation" is the major issue for the Palestinians, then why isn't "The Catastrophe" observed in June on the anniversary of the Arab defeat in the Six Day War?

This day of mourning for Palestinians actually started in 1998 when PLO head and terrorist Yasser Arafat kicked it off. Following Arafat's declaration of recognition for the day, over one million Arabs participate in marches and other events on this day each year.

Palestinian children observing Nabka Day

The significance of this day is further explained on the Virtual Jerusalem website:

The 1948 Palestinian exodus, also known as Nakba, meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm", occurred when approximately 725,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during this bitter war.

If you look up NAKBA online, the search returns numerous Palestinian websites claiming to explain this phenomenon in Palestinian history and eliciting sympathy and even financial donations for the numerous Palestinian refugees in the Arab countries who are descendants of the original refugees from Israel's 1948 War of Independence.

Those who support a full return of the refugees to Israel forget that this would mean the end of Israel since the number of returnees would spell the end of the Zionist project population-wise. The Palestinians right of return to Israeli territory is an impossibility as they would outnumber and overtake the Israeli population.

To understand the hostility towards Israel contained in Nakba Day, one needs only observe one of the customs that occur in Palestine on this day. Again, I quote Bard on a Nakba Day custom: "traffic stopped and people stood straight and silent as sirens of mourning sounded, intentionally mimicking the Israeli practice on Holocaust Remembrance Day" (pg. 257).

In this custom Palestinians are comparing the creation of Israel with the Holocaust!

I challenge Palestinian Christians to confront this satanically inspired attitude of their Palestinian brothers towards Israel. I want to know if Sami Awad and others who are part of his non-violent movement and his organization Holy Land Trust, also equate Israel's creation as a catastrophe on the par with the Holocaust? What do these non-violent Palestinian Christians do on Nakba Day?

Is the evangelical world, influenced by liberation theology and embracing Palestinians as the underdog, any more enlightened than the anti-Zionist secular politicians? With the theological hostility spawned by the likes of Stephen Sizer and Gary Burge, conservative Christians are falling into the anti-Christian Zionism camp and are being deceived into supporting a terrorist mentality fostered by the PA that refuses to accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

The real question is what have the Palestinians done to foster peace in the Middle East?

In a column in the Jewish Journal David Suissa brilliantly argues that Israel, despite all its attempts to make peace with the Palestinian is "sitting isolated and hated, while the uncompromising Palestinians, who . . . joined forces with the terrorist group Hamas, [are] sitting pretty in top of the diplomatic world - and delegitimizing the Jewish state at every turn."

In every attempt by the Israelis to reach a peace accord with the Palestinians one issue is always a major stumbling block - for Palestine to affirm Israel's right to exist as a nation. This dream will never happen as long as Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abba describes Israel's decision to to create a Jewish state in 1948 as a "crime" (Jerusalem Post May 15, 2005).

Jewish Journal writer Suissa declares we need to see the naked truth about the Middle East conflict,

The reason there is no peace has little to do with Israel's refusal to make more concessions, and everything to do with the Palestinian refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish state -- settlements or no settlements.

The speech [Obama's June speech about Israel] forced us to confront the worst-kept secret in the Middle East: Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is a mirage. The conflict is about existence, not borders. The Palestinians would have had their own state 63 years ago if they could make peace with the Jews. But how could they make peace with those they have been taught only to hate?

Is the Modern State of Israel A Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy?

2011-07-28T17:05:00.000-07:00

Tell Aviv

If Jeremiah the prophet took a drive through the modern state of Israel, what would be his reaction? Would he be happy with the modern state of Israel? According to Rev. Dr. Gary Burge, an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and New Testament scholar at Wheaton College and Graduate school, the "modern injustices that occur in the state of Israel" prohibits him from seeing the nation as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

From reading the Book of Jeremiah, we learn the prophet was used by God to chastise the nation for their injustices - seeking after other gods (Jeremiah 2:28); lying (Jeremiah 5:1); lack of fear of God (5:22); neglect the poor and orphans (5:28); filled with false prophets (5:31) and so forth. To punish His faithless nation, God promises to bring a foreign nation (Babylon) against Israel to judge them. In Jeremiah 5:15 we read:

"People of Israel,” declares the LORD,
“I am bringing a distant nation against you—
an ancient and enduring nation,
a people whose language you do not know,
whose speech you do not understand.

To Burge modern Israel is a merely secular state not founded on biblical principles not much different from the Israel of Jeremiah's day. He warns in a 2010 radio conversation on Moody Bible Radio that Christians should be careful about claiming the modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy. Giving divine validation to modern Israel, says Burge, flies in the face of the prophecies Jeremiah made to Israel in the pre-exilic period.

In response we only need to consult the entire context of the prophetic message concerning Israel in the Old Testament. The prophet Ezekiel like his contemporary Jeremiah was well aware of the national sins of Israel. Ezekiel 36:17-19 records:

“Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight. So I poured out my wrath on them because they had shed blood in the land and because they had defiled it with their idols. I dispersed them among the nations, and they were scattered through the countries; I judged them according to their conduct and their actions.

Ezekiel also speaks of the Lord scattering the Jewish people among the nations for a period of time due to their uncleanness before the Lord. But in vv. 22-24 the Lord tells the prophet He will regather His people from the four corners of the earth not because Israel earned God's blessing but in order to honor His name:

I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes.“‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land.

In a similar pattern in Ezekiel 37:11-13 the Lord describes the scattered people of Israel as dry bones in need of spiritual regeneration. However, previous to their spiritual revival the God of Israel brings the Jewish people in their unbelief back to the land regardless of their spiritual condition:

Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them.

At that time the Lord will then cause a spiritual reawakening to happen to Israel as described in Ezekiel 37:14, "I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.’”

God's blessing of Israel by bringing them back into the land is unconditional and not dependent on how deserving they are. Once the people of Israel are back in the land as they are now, they will come to know the Lord.

Gary Burge is adamant concerning modern Israel being compared to ancient Israel, deserving of God removing them from the land once again and dispersing Israel among the nations.

As we look deeper into the beliefs of the Wheaton professor, we learn Burge has more than theological problems with modern day Israel.

In Burge's book Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and Palestinians (2003 Pilgrim Press), we learn from Dexter Van Zile, Christian Media Analyst for CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), that "this book is a combustible mixture of misinformation and theologically justified hostility towards modern Israel."

If anything comes forth from Burge's writings and lectures about Israel, it is the fact that he betrays his own hostility towards the Jewish nation based on his Replacement Theology.

What's most disturbing is that Burge's book has been endorsed by mainline and evangelical church leaders and publications. He understandably received a sympathetic review from the liberal Protestant new source Christian Century.

Surprisingly, Christianity Today, the major magazine publication for evangelical Christianity,
Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and Palestinians, gave Burge's book the "award of merit" in its 2004 Book Awards. David Neff, longtime editor of CT, praised Burge's book and wrote a glowing account that appears on the book's back cover.

In May 2007 Hank Hanegraff, host of Bible Answer Man, conservative Christian talk show promoted and sold Burge's book on his website informing his listeners that it was "an incredible book that you need."

As a result of his book, Burge has earned credibility in the evangelical world and is a sought after commentator about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Can you imagine Burge, with his theological hostility towards Israel as a reliable source of information about the Middle East conflict?

The Wheaton scholar is president of Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding (EMEU), under whose guidance has been responsible for "immersion" trips for American Christians to learn more about Israel through the eyes of Palestinian Christians. In other words, EMEU is an organization whose goal is to indoctrinate Christians to become anti-Israel.

At a Presbyterian Church (USA) conference in 2005 to explain the 2004 General Assembly's decision to pass a divestment resolution against Israel, Burge was one of the featured speakers.

Burge also lectured at "Challenging Christian Zionism: Theology, Politics, and the Palestine-Israel Conflict," sponsored by Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem. Van Zile says of Sabeel that it has "been a persistent source of anti-Zionist agitation in mainline Protestant churches in the United States since its founding in 1994. The organization subjects Israel, Jews, and Judaism to intense scrutiny while remaining nearly silent about Arab and Muslim extremism in the Middle East.

In a CAMERA article, "Mainline Churches Embrace Burge's False Narrative," Dexter Van Zile lists some of the falsehoods found in Burge's book:

Rev. Dr. Burge attributed a quote to David Ben-Gurion that had been exposed as false and fabricated several years before publication of Whose Land? Whose Promise?
Rev. Dr. Burge falsely stated that Israeli-Arabs are denied membership in Israel’s labor movement, when in fact, one of the books he cites reports that Israeli-Arabs had been allowed full membership in Israel’s largest union – the Histadrut – since 1959.
Rev. Dr. Burge falsely reported that Israeli-Arabs are barred from the service in Israel’s military.
Rev. Dr. Burge falsely reported that Israeli-Arabs are prohibited from joining Israel’s major political parties.
Rev. Dr. Burge mis-characterized UN Resolution 242 as requiring Israeli withdrawal to its “pre-1967 borders” when in fact it does not.
Rev. Dr. Burge portrays Hezbollah as a “resistance organization” when in fact its political agenda and leaders clearly state the organization is dedicated to the destruction of Israel – a fact he omits in his description.
Rev. Dr. Burge portrays the founding of the PLO as an attempt to resolve the problem of Palestinian refugees created by the 1948 war when in fact its founding was motivated by a desire for the destruction of Israel.

From Burge's book and his readiness to condemn the modern state of Israel, it becomes clear the professor is not providing an analysis of Israel but an grossly erroneous indictment of the nation.

Did God Lie to Israel About Promising Them a Homeland? Part 3

2011-07-27T18:02:00.000-07:00

When it comes to Christians supporting Israel, we have to ask ourselves an important question. Do I stand for Israel because of my love for the Jewish homeland and its people, or do I support Israel only because Israel's salvation is the key component to hurrying the return of Jesus?

Sadly, I think the latter is mostly true. When I tell evangelical leaders and lay people about the current anti-Israel "Evangelical Intifada" taking place in the church, I often fail to observe a serious reaction. I witness a response that tells me a large segment of evangelicals don't care whether Israel is being trashed by some evangelicals unless it takes place in their own house of worship.

I also observe Christians who listen to anti-Israel speakers or view pro-Palestinian films like Little Town of Bethlehem and With God on Our Side, do so with an attitude of malaise. It is the rare Christian who is going to do the research and reading it'll take to refute and burst the propaganda bubble surrounding these films and lectures.

I would hope that my blogs and the writings of so many other evangelicals (see my Blog Log) who see the serious of the anti-Israel invasion of the evangelical church will cause the church to wake up.

One of the battle fronts of this "Evangelical Intifada" is theological. Names like Stephen Sizer, Vicar of Christ Church in the UK and Wheaton College New Testament professor Gary Burge are among the theologians who espouse the scriptural nuts and bolts of the anti-Israel invasion.

In a recent radio conversation with Michael Rydelnik, Jewish Studies department head at Moody Bible College, Burge states the covenants God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have been fulfilled in Christ. Christ, according to Burge, is the true seed of Abraham. The promises Christians experience in Christ have been "elevated above the promises made to Abraham". No longer is God concerned with the land of Israel, but is more focused on the whole world.

If Burge is correct, then the nation of Israel should not be of any concern to the writers of the New Testament after the coming of Jesus. The major focus should be on Christ and the church - not one nation, especially Israel.

In Galatians 3:9 Paul writes, "Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

Burge correctly notices God's focus today is urging all humanity to find salvation through Israel's Messiah. Burge fails to understand the verse quoted by Paul from Genesis 12:3 simply states Lord's intent from when He first chose Israel as His people - to bless the whole world through the people of Israel. Through progressive revelation, the prophets revealed this blessing would come through one seed of Israel - the Messiah.

However, the salvation of the earth brought through the messianic seed of Israel is not at cross purposes with God's other covenants with Israel.

In Romans 9:4-5 Paul writes concerning the people of Israel, "Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." Paul traces God's plan to bring the Messiah forth from Israel who will bless all of humanity. Yet Paul never says the other covenants God has with Israel will be nullified once the Messiah comes. Only theologians like Sizer and Burge spout forth that false belief.

Paul says later in Romans 11:25-27 He will bring Israel into the blessings of the New Covenant and will forgive their sins. This is a promise that will be fulfilled with the nation as a whole but in the meantime the God of Israel is saving a remnant of Jewish people as they place their trust in Yeshua (Romans 11:5).

Further evidence is found in the prophetic passages of the New Testament that describe Israel back in the Promised Land after the present diaspora. In Matthew 24:15-16 Jesus quotes from the Hebrew prophet Daniel (9:27) that in the last days prior to his return, “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." For this passage to be fulfilled, a Jewish temple must be standing in Israel. Consequently, the rebuilding of the Temple can only occur if the Jewish people are back in the land.

For those Reformed theologians and adherents of replacement theology who see these events as already fulfilled in the first century, then they would be forced to conclude Jesus has already returned. In the passage after the mention of the "abomination that causes desolation," Jesus adds, “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other"(Matthew 24: 30-31).

From these New Testament passages we can only conclude the Jewish people will be back in the land prior to the return of Jesus when the abomination [the Antichrist] stands in the Jewish Temple to desecrate it (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

The presence of the Jewish people in the land of Israel prior to Jesus' return fits with other passages in the New Testament. In Acts 1:11 in harmony with Zechariah 14:4 the scriptures teach the Messiah's feet will stand on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. In Zechariah 14 the prophet is speaking to the Jewish people and telling them the nations of the earth will come against Israel (vs. 2) but the Messiah will come to Jerusalem to defeat their enemies. How can such a passage be fulfilled unless the Jewish people are back in the land? Despite the New Testament's focus on the gospel going forth to all humanity (1 Timothy 2:4), God's dealings with the people of Israel never cease.

In the radio interchange between Rydelnik and Burge, the Moody Bible College professor brings out the fact Israel is mentioned in the Book of Revelation in harmony with Matthew 24 and the Old Testament prophets. The Jewish Temple is mentioned in Revelation 11 as being rebuilt prior to Jesus' return. In Revelation 12:5 Israel is seen under the figure of a woman who gives birth to "a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” In this passage Israel becomes an object of Satan's hatred and is persecuted by the devil or dragon.

In response Burge answers like most scholars who refuse to see the obvious by saying, "scholars debate the images seen in the Book of Revelation." I'm sorry to inform Gary Burge but when God gives instructions to measure His temple describing the altar and the outer court of the gentiles (Revelation 11:1-2), the interpretation of the text is not figurative but literal.

Where will Burge stop with his excuse of referring to the use of figurative language in Revelation to avoid acknowledging Israel's place in prophecy? Is the return of Jesus in Revelation 19:11-16 figurative or literal?

My next blog on this subject will deal with the question whether the modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy?

Did God Lie to Israel About Promising Them a Homeland? Part 2

2011-07-25T17:22:00.000-07:00

Does it matter whether or not God keeps His promise to give Israel a homeland? Yes. But why?

First, the trustworthiness of the Lord is at stake. Can God's word be trusted? Since God went into such detail in the Jewish Scriptures concerning the geography of the land He promised Israel, to discover these promises are no longer applicable would change the way we perceive God's veracity.

Second, in explaining the claims of Jesus to Jewish people, the Jewish individual would be surprised that the promise of the land of Israel is no longer on the table, but has now been reinterpreted or no longer applicable.

Finally, any view of prophecy must take into account the centrality of Israel to the prophetic timeline as described in the Holy Scriptures.

I have found replacement theologians who believe the Church or Christ has replaced Israel in the New Testament era, are not amenable to be called "replacement theologians." Some of them like evangelical Professor Gary Burge of Wheaton College prefers to be tagged as a Reformed theologians. Burge's aversion to being called a "replacement theologian" is a decoy meant to distract his readers from the fact no matter what he say, he still fits the description of a replacement theologian.

In a 2010 radio conversation on Moody Radio, Dr. Burge and Michael Rydelnik, head of the Jewish Studies program at Moody Bible College both theologians shared their views on what they believe the Bible teaches about the land promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Old Testament.

Burge is adamant that in the New Testament God changed His focus from a geographical or territorial framework to His spiritual promises to the whole world. God is no longer concerned with the boundaries of Israel but rather His concern is that the gospel message reaches beyond the boundaries of the Jewish homeland to all the earth. The territory of Israel is no longer significant to God.

To get a better grasp of the scriptures used by Burge and other replacement theologians, we go back to the original promise made to Abraham found in Genesis 12:1-3:

The LORD had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

“I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you;

I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;

and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

Notice that God commanded Abraham to go to a specific place . . . a land. Then the Lord promised Abraham that He would cause His offspring to increase into a great nation. Most important is the final promise: all the peoples of the earth will be blessed through Abraham. Through Abraham and his offspring, the world will experience blessing.

Once more in Genesis 13:14-17 the Lord is more specific about the land promises to Abraham and his descendants:

The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”

Nowhere in the text does it say that the universal blessing provided by Abraham's seed replaces the land promises as Burge claims. The Wheaton professor quotes from Hebrews 11:9-12, 16 to make his point:

By faith he [Abraham] made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she[b] considered him faithful who had made the promise. And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

According to Burge in Hebrews 11, the New Testament switches the focus from Abraham seeking territory on earth to seeking a heavenly home. Notice some of the problems this interpretation creates:

First, the other promises God made to Abraham about having descendants as numerous as the stars still holds true in Hebrews 11. In fact, the writer of Hebrews makes it clear the descendants are not Abraham's spiritual seed but his physical seed since the author mentions the descendants came from Abraham and Sarah through the miraculous childbirth of Isaac.

Second, it is no surprise that Abraham was looking forward to "the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God," and that his descendants were also looking beyond the land as the ultimate destination of the human soul but to a heavenly homeland. Yet that does not cancel out the promises made to Abraham and his seed about the land. Why can't Israel be promised an earthly homeland with the greater hope that in the afterlife they will enter into an eternal homeland into the presence of the God of Israel? Why does one have to cancel out the other?

Replacement theologians must grapple with several other New Testament passages in Romans that reiterate God's commitment to fulfill His covenants with Israel which include the promise of land:

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.

Romans 9:3-4 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

Romans 11:28-31 they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[a] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.

In all three passages from Romans, Paul makes it clear God has not taken away His promises and covenants He has made with Israel. God is faithful to His promises. Yes, the nation of Israel will find their fullest blessing of eternal life through acceptance of their Messiah Jesus. In the meantime, Paul warns gentile Christians like replacement theologians in Romans 11:20-21, "But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either."

Gentile Christians are to beware of becoming conceited not only in their attitude towards Jewish people but also in their theology that replaces God's promises He made to Israel and transferring them to the Church. Replacement or Reformed theology is arrogant in their attempt to ignore God's commitment to Israel despite their present and temporary rejection of their Messiah. God is not finished with Israel yet. Romans 9:4 is stated in the present tense which means the covenants and promises belong to Israel now and they have not been relinquished.

Another passage referred to by Burge in the Moody Radio conversation is Matthew 23: 37-39 where Jesus weeps over Israel due to their rejection of Him as their long awaited Messiah:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

Jesus speaks of the destruction of the Temple and by inference the third major diaspora of the Jewish nation. Because He did not mention the land, says Burge, it is no longer important. A "holy geography" is no important to God, but the salvation of Jewish souls. Yes, Burge is correct. Again, the focus on Israel's salvation as a nation or as individuals does not cancel out His land promises.

Instead of focusing on the land promises, says Burge, God now "sees the whole world as holy territory," as stated in Romans 4:13, "It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith."

n Romans 4;!3 Paul is broadening and clarifying the promises given to Abraham that his seed would bless the whole world. He is not changing the Old Testament text. Rydelnik states that according to Daniel 7 the Messiah will rule over the world when He comes to earth and will sit on His throne located in Jerusalem. Just as the Abrahamic Covenant is concerned with the whole world (Genesis 12:3), Yeshua will rule over the earth with His immediate rule over Israel and through the Jewish nation will rule the nations.

The seed through which this blessing comes is the Messiah Jesus (Galatians 3:19). The blessing given to the world is the offer of salvation through Jesus which comes to people through the declaring of the good news of salvation through Yeshua (Acts 1:8). God now focuses on the whole world not just one territory, Israel.

Didn't the Lord tell the disciples to take the gospel beyond the borders of Israel into the whole world? (Acts 1:8). Burge fails to make the distinction between the declaration of the gospel message to the whole world and the declaration of specific territory to one nation. One does not rule out the other except in the mind of the Wheaton professor dead set to deny Israel its promises. There is no evidence that God chucked the land promises to Israel for the mission of bringing the gospel to the whole world. Both are true.

Let it not be missed throughout the Jewish Scriptures, the God of Israel described the whole world will acknowledge Him as seen in Psalm 9:11, "Sing the praises of the LORD, enthroned in Zion; proclaim among the nations what he has done."

God is other-nation conscious throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 18:49; 22;27). Right now, the Church is given the mission of declaring the Word of God among the nations but the time will come when Israel will step back into its God-given role as seen in Revelation 7 when144,000 Jewish people declare the New Testament message to the gentile nations prior to Jesus' return to earth.

In the Book of Revelation, which is concerned with end time events prior to the return of the Messiah, the focus of the book is centered in Israel. When confronted by Rydelnik about Israel's presence in John's revelation, Burge gave the standard line when a scholar can't answer a question or is cornered, "Well, there is a lot of debate over the interpretation of the Book of Revelation."

In another blog I will address this issue in greater detail. However, do not miss the fact when Israel is clearly described back in the land and in the center of God's program, the replacement and Reformed theologian will always fall back on the fact "this matter is up to debate" instead of dealing with the actual texts where Israel is mentioned.

Burge's ploy of not dealing with the obvious placement of Israel in the Jewish homeland prior to Jesus' return is a dead giveaway. Though he claims to love the Jewish people, like many replacement theologians, he exposes the truth that he has little regard for God's covenant promises to Israel except to deny them.

Did God Lie to Israel About Giving Them A Jewish Homeland? Part 1

2011-07-22T14:37:00.000-07:00

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them," said Jesus in Matthew 5:17. Despite Jesus' commitment to not abolish the prophetic message, Reformed theologians believe the modern state of Israel has not been divinely given to the Jewish people as promised by the prophets.

One such theologian is Wheaton College New Testament professor Gary Burge. More than a theologian Burge often serves on panels where politically charged anti-Israel messages are delivered by himself and other speakers.

In a radio conversation on a 2010 Moody Radio broadcast between himself and Moody Bible College Jewish studies professor Michael Rydelnik, Burge explains his position on Israell: Since Israel is not faithful to the covenant God made with Israel as found in the Mosaic Law, then the land does not belong to the Jewish people.

Professor Burge noted the modern state of Israel bears no likeness to a country living in obedience to the Torah. In fact, the state of Israel was founded by secular Jews not religious ones. The modern state of Israel, according to Burge, is disqualified from having divine ownership of the land.

So the question remains, "Did God make a promise to Israel that still holds true or is it no longer relevant due to Israel's disobedience?"

Burge argues the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob concerning the land of Israel were conditional upon Israel's obedience. To prove his point he points to the times when God took the Jewish people from the land and delivered them into the Assyrian and Babylonian Captivities due to their refusal to heed the statutes of the Torah.

The professor is correct on the fact God removed Israel from the land because of their disobedience. Leviticus 20:22 warns, "Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out."

Though God sent His people out of the land, it is essential to note that He never took away their title deed to the land.

The interplay between Israel's disobedience caused them to be removed from the land and later returning to the land is explained in Leviticus 26:3-6.

Initially, God focuses on Israel's enjoyment of the land in Leviticus 26:3-6 when He cautions:

If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees their fruit.

Your threshing will continue until grape harvest and the grape harvest will continue until planting, and you will eat all the food you want and live in safety in your land.

I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid. I will remove wild beasts from the land, and the sword will not pass through your country.

Then He warns Abraham's descendants they will be removed from the land if they refuse Him as witnessed in Leviticus 26:32-35

I myself will lay waste the land, so that your enemies who live there will be appalled. I will scatter you among the nations and will draw out my sword and pursue you. Your land will be laid waste, and your cities will lie in ruins.

Then the land will enjoy its sabbath years all the time that it lies desolate and you are in the country of your enemies; then the land will rest and enjoy its sabbaths. All the time that it lies desolate, the land will have the rest it did not have during the sabbaths you lived in it.

Finally, God says He will bring His people back to the land upon their repentance and humbling themselves before Him as described in Leviticus 26:40-42

But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness and their hostility toward me, which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies—then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

Notice, God says He "will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember my land." The covenant He refers to is the Abrahamic covenant as found in Genesis 12, 13, 17 where God promises the land to Abraham's seed without any strings attached. In fact, when God ratifies the covenant He alone passes through the pieces of the sacrifice needed to ratify His promise, and then restates the covenant to Abraham and the geographical boundaries of the promised Holy Land in Genesis 15:17-20

When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi[e] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

Yes, for Israel to enjoy, not own the land, they are to be obedient to the Lord. Most importantly, when we read the prophets, we witness the grace of the Lord is promising to bring the Jewish people back from their worldwide dispersion into the land of Israel despite their disobedience, but in order to protect the honor of God. This prophetic promise is found in Ezekiel 36:22-24:

Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes.For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land.

For Burge to deny this passage and many more like it, is to make Jesus abolish rather than fulfill the prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures.

The weakness of the Reformed position is that most of their advocates like Burge are weak in their knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures. Their Reformed systematic theology forces them to ignore myriads of prophetic passages where God promises the land of Israel to the Jewish people.

Gary Burge maintains those who believe God promised the Israel to the Jewish people hold to a "land theology." He also states this "land theology" is not in the New Testament. Rather, the New Testament moves away from the territorial aspect of God's promises to Israel and focuses solely on the spiritual dimension.

Individuals who hold to God's promise of the land to Israel are guilty of holding to a "Jewish theology" not a "Christian theology." I prefer to call what I believe a "biblical theology" - a theology that encompasses both testaments.

Burge, like many theologians who deny the land is promised to Israel, start with a presupposition they cannot prove - any of God's promises found in the Old Testament that are not repeated in the New Testament are no longer applicable. I find his position untenable simply because it is a man made theological belief not found in any biblical passages.

I wonder since Burge maintains that if a promise of God is not repeated in the New Testament, it has been superseded by New Testament theology, how he feels about God's promise in Genesis 9:11-16 to never destroy the earth with a flood? The sign of this covenant is the visible appearance of a rainbow;

I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.

This promise is not repeated in the New Testament, so according to the Wheaton New Testament professor, the promise doeS not hold true and God can destroy the earth with a flood again. We see how foolish Burge's presupposition is when we apply it to many Old Testament promises that are not repeated in the New Testament.

Burge grew strangely quiet during his interchange with Rydelnik when the Moody professor read Romans 11:28-29 regarding God's unchanging covenants with Israel:

but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.

Though Burge claims he is not a replacement theologian which teaches the Church has replaced Israel, Gary still tiptoes through the minefield of replacement theology and agrees with them on many points.

To his credit, Burge expressed his conviction that God has a special love for the Jewish people and that antisemitism is a sin against the God of Israel. However, after Burge is finished stripping Israel of the promises the Lord laid down in the Jewish scriptures, he still ends up with the position that the church has replaced Israel. No longer are Israel's national promises of a land, a growing nation and the blessing of all the nations through Israel applicable. According to Burge, all the promises made to Israel are now fulfilled in Christ. That sounds like replacement theology to me.

Ziggy Marley Refuses to Cancel Israel Concerts

2011-07-21T19:05:00.000-07:00

Today the Jerusalem Post reported reggae musician Ziggy Marley, son of icon Bob Marley did not bow to anti-Israel pressure to nix his two concerts in Israel. Instead, Marley kept his commitments to perform in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem at Sacher Park.

In light of the recent pressure by activist groups wanting musicians to boycott Israel, Marley's snub of these anti-Israelists comes as an act of courage on his part. Along with Bob Dylan's concert in Israel last month, it is refreshing to know certain musicians will not politicize their music or allow others to drag them into their anti-Israel politics.

My hat's off to Ziggy Marley. Though I'm not as familiar with his music as with his Dad's, I may even go out and buy one of his CDs to show my approval of his decision.

Reggae star Ziggy Marley rejects calls to boycott Israel

By KAROLYN COORSH
07/20/2011

“Rastafarianism has a lot to do with the Old Testament and Solomon and David and Moses, so we have a strong connection from many years back,” singer says.

Online pressure to boycott Israel didn’t dissuade reggae star Ziggy Marley from performing in Tel Aviv Tuesday night or on Thursday at the Return to Zion festival at Sacher Park in Jerusalem.

“People say, don’t disgrace your father’s name by going to Israel and all these type of things,” the eldest son of the late musical icon Bob Marley said at a press conference Tuesday at the Sheraton Hotel in Tel Aviv, referring to the negative responses he saw on Facebook and other sites upon publication of his Israel tour dates.

“What I tell them is that, listen, I follow nature, I follow the universe, I follow God. I’m not a part of the segregation that people put on each other … I’m a part of nature and God, and God made the sun shine for everybody.”

This isn’t Marley’s first visit to Israel, both as a performer and visitor. His wife is Israeli and he said his young children speak Hebrew. And there are other ties to the land for Marley, who said his culture of Rastafarianism is rooted in concepts developed in “this region of the world.”

“Rastafarianism has a lot to do with the Old Testament and Solomon and David and Moses, so we have a strong connection from many years back,” he said.

Marley, who recently released his latest album, Wild and Free, said the message he is trying to convey is one of love and spirituality.

But at the press conference he didn’t shy away from questions of a political nature. Marley weighed in on the Knesset’s recent passing of the antiboycott law, which allows civilians to file lawsuits against organizations or people who impose boycotts on Israeli economic, academic or commercial institutions.

“I think the people should have a right to boycott whoever they want to boycott without the government making them into criminals, and try to protect corporations from people,” he said. “They should protect people from corporations.”

A strong advocate of the widespread use of marijuana, Marley also chastized corporations and politicians for criminalizing and demonizing the plant. He said hemp seeds have nutritional and environmental benefits, and can be used in a wide variety of sustainable practices.

But the tour this time around is mostly about music, and Marley said he is still happy to be known as the son of Bob Marley.

“People love me everywhere I go,” Marley said to laughter.

Becoming serious, he said his father is one of his favorite musicians.

“He was just a great artist and that is one of my biggest inspirations.” But he said he doesn’t expect his children to follow in his or his father’s footsteps, adding that he hopes his children do whatever they feel “inside of them.”

Asked whether he or his family practices Judaism at home, Marley replied: “I practice love.”
Download JPost's iPhone application

Are Evangelicals Pulling The Plug on Supporting Israel?

2011-07-19T17:56:00.000-07:00

Ever since I've been a follower of Jesus, life has been one long battle in standing for the truth. Over the years I've stopped trying to end the combative lifestyle I find myself in and have accepted the fact conflict comes with the territory of defending God's word against those who would try to corrupt it and deny its truths.

In my 20s I enrolled in Dallas Baptist University as a religion major, There I discovered my professors were all replacement theologians who believed the Church had replaced Israel and now all the promises made to Israel in the Jewish Scriptures are fulfilled in the Body of Christ.

I was confused, angry and felt as a Jewish person I had been duped into believing in a faith that caused me to mistrust God's word and those who interpreted it. How could God promise Abraham a geographical territory known as Israel, but later on reveal that His land promise was not to be taken seriously? Now the land of Israel, as I was taught, has been replaced with heaven, the true territorial goal of the Christian.

For the next few years I familiarized myself with books written by Covenant and Reformed theologians, amillennialists, post-millennialists and historic pre-millennialists (George Ladd). During college and seminar I wrote papers disputing the replacement theological system and in the process became stronger in my belief that the New Testament makes a clear distinction between the Church and Israel, and that Israel is never replaced by the Church.

My break through came in an hermeneutics (science of biblical interpretation) class taught by Dr. Bell, a renegade graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary. When Dr. Bell pronounced he was a "true Jew" and that Jewish people were no longer God's chosen people, I almost fell out of my chair. I responded, "Dr. Bell, I perceive the weakness of your theology is that you totally disregard 1000s of passages in the Old Testament describing God's plan for Israel and it's those very passages that dismantle your theology. It's as if you have a theological filter through which you interpret the Jewish scriptures that fit your theology but the passages that won't pass through your pre-conceived filter are ignored."

I made an "A" in Dr. Bell's class, God rest his theologically incorrect soul.

Today a new element has been added to replacement theology. No longer is replacement theology or Reformed beliefs (it's all the same Israel denying theology) just a theological system but it has taken on a political dimension.

Replacement theology and their theologians such as Dr. Gary Burge, Wheaton College New Testament professor, has now formed a clear merger with Palestinian Christians who are dead set on promoting an anti-Israel perspective in evangelical churches.

Already several Christian leaders have drunk the Palestinian Christian Kool-Aid such as Lynne Hybels, wife of mega church leader, Bill Hybels (Willow Creek Church), Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Tony Campolo and others who appear on the docket at the 2012 pro Palestinian Christians Christ at the Checkpoint Conference at Bethlehem Bible College in the West Bank.

These theologians and activists claim to be non-violent in their stance against Israel, yet they all share the common goal of distorting the history of the Middle East to make Israel the sole culprit of perpetrator of all of Palestinian ills. Sami Awad, in a lecture given at the Arvada, Colorado Vineyard, complains that the Palestinian Christian community has shrunk from 30% to 3%. Yet he fails to go through the sequence of historical events in which the Palestinian Authority disrespectfully destroyed Christian churches and took over these holy sites as locations to engage the Israelis in battle. Did Sami ever ponder the fact that Christians are leaving the disputed territories due to the mistreatment of his fellow Christians by Palestinians Muslims? Oddly, the Christian population in Israel is increasing.

Bottom line: Evangelicals are being taken on a wild ride by these anti-Christian Zionists and Palestinian Christians who distort facts about Israel's involvement in the ME conflict, misuse biblical passages about God's promises to the Jewish people, claim to advocate non-violence while refusing to condemn the PLO or Hamas and focus only on Israeli soldiers and appeal to the evangelical concern for the underdog to persuade followers of Christ to play into the hands of these double tongued leaders who come "bearing words of peace."

What can be done? If you are an evangelical -Jewish or Gentile - I appeal to you to share the blogs you find on Thinking Outside the Blog about the Palestinian Christian issue. Read other blogs such as seismic-shock.com and ElderofZyon.blogspot and a messianic Jewish blog roshpinaproject.com. Share the articles you find on these blogs on your Facebook page. Tweet the articles you find on my blog and others.

The underhanded work of Palestinian Christians in America's evangelical churches must be stopped. Do not be fooled by their words of reconciliation, "just cause" and non-violence. Most of these groups such as Sami Awad's Holy Land Trust align themselves with Israel hating groups involved in divestment, boycott and sanctions against Israel and do all they can to foster an anti-Israel theology in the evangelical church.

I admonish my readers to start reading books on Middle East history so you can respond to the twisted lies perpetrated by these leaders who speak to unknowledgeable Christians regarding the recent history of Israel. Go out and purchase Mitchell Bard's Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict for starters.

Truth Doesn't Matter for Hanegraff Regarding Israel

2011-07-18T17:56:00.000-07:00

Christian Research Institute headed by Hank Hanegraff (the Bible Answer Man) prides itself on its motto, "because Truth matter." However, in a recent article authored by Palestinian Christian Mourice Mrabe, despite CRI's stance, truth went out the window.

Mrabe tells the story of his youth growing up in the Arab Christian community in Palestine. Usually with Christian ministries and leaders, if a person puts the word "Christian" after his nationality, then it is assumed that person is telling the truth. In this case Mrabe is poor example of CRI's commitment to checking out the facts behind one of their writer's claims.

Mourice Mrabe states that during the 1948 war of Israel's independence, the Jewish forces "took over most of Palestine, leaving only twenty percent of the land for the Arab majority, and displacing at least 750,000 from their homes and villages." As a result of the Israeli "take-over" Mrabe ended up as a refugee in the West Bank. The Israeli showed no discrimination is ousting both Arab Christians and Arab Muslims from the land.

It is very common for Palestinian Christians who speak to Christian groups to emphasize how the Israelis expelled Palestinians from the land during the period of 1947-1949. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Let it not be forgotten if the Palestinians accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have any need to become a refugee. An independent Palestinian state would now exist beside Israel. The actual responsibility of the refugee problem, as unpopular as this sounds, rests with the Arab peoples.

In fact, even the numbers of refugees Palestinian Christians commonly quote is highly dubious. They claim 800,000 to a million Palestinians became refugees during Israel's War of Independence. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found there were approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in all of Palestine. A 1949 Government of Israel census counted 160,000 Arabs living in the country after the war. In 1947 a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area. This means that no more than 650,000 Palestinians could have become refugees.

But Palestinians often forget the Jewish side of this story when it comes to refugees.

Palestinian Christians conveniently forget the large number of Jewish people who fled from Arab states. In fact, the number of Jewish people escaping Arab countries for Israel after the War of Independence was nearly double the number of Arabs leaving Palestine! In fact, Arab countries expelled over 820,000 Jews from their lands between 1948-1972. Of these refugees 586,000 settled in Israel without going to refugee camps like Palestinians.

What's even more astounding is that through November 2003, 101 of the 681 UN resolutions regarding the Middle East conflict solely concerned the Palestinian refugees. Not one mentioned the Jewish refugees who fled from Arab countries.

Christian Palestinians like Mrabe fail to mention that Jewish leaders prior to the War of Independence invited the Arabs to remain in Palestine and to become citizens of Israel. A few sentences from the Assembly of Palestine Jewry issued in October 1947 will suffice:

We will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a cooperation gainful to both. It is no, here and now, from Jerusalem itself that a cal must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good for the peace and progress of sovereign equals (David ben Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel, pg. 220).

In the weeks following the announcement of the UN partition resolution, the Arab exodus already started. The first to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arab who anticipated the coming war and got out of Dodge to other Arab lands to wait out the war. Less affluent Arabs also left Palestine to live with relatives and friends.

I. F. Stone in This Is Israel recalls that by the end of 1948, the evacuation of Palestine by its inhabitants was so alarming that the Palestine Arab Higher Committee "asked neighboring [Arab] countries to refuse visas to these refugees" to stop the flow of abandonment.

When one reads the press reports during the War of Independence, there is no mention of any forcible expulsion of Arabs by Israeli forces. Rather, the press described the Palestinians as fleeing and evacuating their homes on their own recognizance:

Let us not forget Palestinian were also encouraged to leave their dwelling places to make way for the invading Arab forces.

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian PM in 1948-1949, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. (The Memoirs of Haled al Azm pp. 386-387)

in recounting his story Mrabe tells how one of his brothers sought work in Jordan and was refused entrance to be reunited with his family in the West Bank by the Israelis. Since his brother could not come back to the land, he went to Lebanon during the 70s. The brother joined the PLO while in Lebanon "after suffering the loss of his homeland." Mrabe claims that his father believed his PLO gave his life for the cause of peace.

The PLO is a terrorist organization devoted to the destruction of Israel and whose aim is to expel the Jewish presence from the Holy Land.

The fact that Mrabe did not even refer to the terrorist nature of the PLO is disconcerting. This is especially true because in ending his article Mrabe, worship leader of a church in Sacramento, mentions Palestinian Christians play an essential role to bring "individuals closer to God" and provide "reason and hope for equality and reconciliation between the different groups in Israel/Palestine."

I'm not sure how useful Palestinian Christians can be if they refuse to recognize the terrorist nature of the PLO and find it useful to revise Middle East history for their own self serving aims.

Hank Hanegraff and the Christian Research Institute dropped the ball on doing their research in allowing a Palestinian Christian to get in his digs against Israel without checking out his facts.

Messianic Jewish Scholar Debates Christian Professor Over Israel

2011-07-15T19:28:00.000-07:00

The debate over the ownership of the land of Israel is not a dead issue in evangelical Christian circles. On one side, there are theologians who believe the covenants God made with Israel continue even to this day.
Those individuals refer to such statements made by Paul in Romans 11:28-29 which states "but as far as election is concerned, they [Israel] are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable."

On the other side of theological aisle is professor Gary Burge from the New Testament department of Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. Burge, a self proclaimed Reformed theologian, believes the Bible teaches that because of Israel's disobedience in rejecting Jesus as Messiah, the Jewish people have lost ownership of the land of Israel.

Burge maintains the Jewish people living in Israel today have no divine right or authority to claim Israel as their God-given homeland. Like a domino affect Burge has also become involved in evangelical efforts to delegitimize Israel's claim to land and has become a participant in various pro-Palestinian Christian efforts to cast dispersion on the nation of Israel in their treatment of Palestinians.

The debate rages on.

Last year Rydelnik and Burge appeared on Moody Radio on the Janet Parshall show to discuss their views on "land theology." I recommend my readers spend the time to listen to this quick moving dialogue over an essential issue.

Has God given the Jewish people the land of Israel to be their homeland, or has the covenant God made with Abraham to give his descendant the land of Israel ended because of their disobedience?

Listen to Rydelnik and Burge hash out their different perspectives on this most essential issue. Please click here to listen to this broadcast.

Bob Dylan Plays in Tel Aviv Despite Pleas to Boycott Israel

2011-07-14T17:35:00.000-07:00

On June 20th Bob Dylan performed in Israel amid a lot of pressure by various anti-Israel groups in favor of boycotting the Jewish state. One group Please Don't Play for Apartheid Israel expressed their disappointment when the legendary rocker ignored their pleas and went forward with his concert.

Hooray for Bob Dylan who stood up to these groups calling on the singer to boycott Israel. Such groups are using videos to call on such artists as Paul Simon, Moby and Duran Duran to cancel their concerts. Some of the artists who have honored the boycott include Carlos Santana, who cited scheduling problems for the cancelation. Yet boycott groups against Israel are claiming Santana as one artist who has honored their call to boycott Israel.

Regardless of the call for a boycott, Dylan performed and even sang several of his Christian songs for the mostly Israeli crowd. I've gained a new respect for Dylan for standing up to pressure and not giving in to pressure to anti-Israel groups.

Are Anti Zionists also Anti Semitic?

2011-07-11T17:44:00.000-07:00

A standard line by anti-Zionist Christians is that their stand against Israel does not mean they are anti-Semitic.

Stephen Sizer, Vicar of Christ Church in Surrey, UK is a noted anti-Zionist who claims to be pro-Israel and not an anti-Semite.

I ask you to be the judge of whether Reverend Sizer, who appears at almost every Palestinian Christian conference, is an anti-Semite. Based on the company he keeps and the authorities he quotes, I have good reason to tag this Christian pastor as both anti-Israel and an anti-Semite whose writings help fuel the enmity of Israel's enemies against the Jewish nation.

This is the same Stephen Sizer who is a featured speaker at the Bethlehem Bible College's Christ at the Checkpoint Conference which includes such notables as author John Ortberg, Lynne Hybels, wife of Willow Creek Pastor, Bill Hybels, Christian writer Ron Sider, Jews for Jesus worker Richard Harvey, speaker and author Tony Campolo and many others.

Here is a recent video on Stephen Seizer and his associates:

Israeli Team Uses Software To Determine Bible Authorship

2011-06-30T16:37:00.000-07:00

When I read the headline "An Israeli Algorithm Sheds Light on the Bible," I throught I was having deja vu experience. Why? Despite the new software this team of Israeli scholars used to shed light on the scriptures, the conclusions they've reached are outdated and have already been disproven by conservative scholars.

To be fair, here is what the startling new discovery is all about: "The new software analyzes style and word choices to distinguish parts of a single text written by different authors, and when applied to the Bible its algorithm teased out distinct writerly voices in the holy book."

Matti Friedman, API writer for the article gives the gist of what new insights this sleuth software has uncovered:

For millions of Jews and Christians, it's a tenet of their faith that God is the author of the core text of the Hebrew Bible — the Torah, also known as the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses. But since the advent of modern biblical scholarship, academic researchers have believed the text was written by a number of different authors whose work could be identified by seemingly different ideological agendas and linguistic styles and the different names they used for God.

In light of running the biblical text through this advanced software we now know almost 3500 years after the biblical text was written, that Moses did not act on his own when he wrote the Torah - the Five Books of Moses. Unfortunately, this "new" viewpoint gained from digital research is as old as a long list of late nineteenth century biblical scholars who developed what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis (DH)

The Documentary Hypothesis states the Pentateuch was a compilation of selections from several different documents, composed at different places and times over a period of five centuries, long after Moses. And they came to these conclusions without computers!

According to proponents of this theory, Moses did not write the Torah. The ramification of this claim by the modern team of Israeli researchers is less than flattering for Jewish and Christian believers in the authenticity of the biblical text.

We are now forced to question the text when it says in Exodus 17:14 that "the Lord said to Moses . . . Write this for a memorial in a book." Other similar statements supporting Mosaic authorship can be found in Exodus 24:4, 34:27 and Numbers 33:1-2. Did Moses write the Torah or did a collection of writers claim Moses wrote the Five Books? Weren't they compromising the integrity of Moses and the text he allegedly wrote when we find out he didn't write it all of it after all?

This means that the Bible - a book of truth - is built on a fabrication of false claims and statements.

Other books in the Torah state that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Joshua 8:31 claims, "as it is written in the book of the law of Moses . . " Now the so-called deception has leaked beyond the Pentateuch and into the historical books of the Bible.

The New Testament also witnesses to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. In John 7:19 Jesus asked, "Did not Moses give you the law . . ? So even Jesus was implicated in this fraudulent claim that Moses himself wrote the first five books of the scriptures.

If we are going to determine the authorship of the Bible using computer software, we can't help but start with an assumption. It doesn't take a wiz to figure out computer research starts with assumptions that are already in alignment with what the researchers input into the computer. The same assumptions that gave birth to the Documentary Hypothesis aka the Graf-Wellhausen Theory still hold true today.

First, most scholars who set out to improve on our knowledge of the compilation of the Bible start with the premise the Bible was not given by supernatural revelation. Starting with this premise, then the conclusion will always demonstrate that the Bible was not supernaturally revealed by God to humans.

Regardless of the claim of the Bible that the text came through God speaking to men, this statement is rejected from the start by scholars who refuse to believe it. This is commonly known as circular reasoning. Of course the software used by the Israeli team will reach the conclusion God did not speak to one man, Moses, and give him the Torah. This is the presupposition under which the Israeli team started with and inputted into the computer.

Second, the team ignores the references to Moses authorship found in later books of the Bible. They would have to reject the later claims of Mosaic authorship in Joshua or in the New Testament and call them "later insertions," in order to hold to their position.

Third, the Israeli team starts with the belief that the writer of the Pentateuch was incapable of using more than one name for God and more than one style of writing regardless of the subject matter.

API writer Friedman substantiates this belief in his article:

Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.

The priestly school is concocted by the appearance of the name Elohim for God and the non-priestly school is based on the appearance of the tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the biblical text. For some reason, to these students of the Scriptures, Moses was incapable of using both terms in one chapter and so there must be two different writers of the biblical text who may have been separated by hundreds of years.

in his excellent book, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Christian scholar Gleason Archer observes:

According to these theorists, a single author like Milton could not possible have written merry poems such as L'Allegro, lofty epic poetry such as Paradise Lost and scintillating prose essays such as Areopagitica. If he had been an ancient Hebrew, at least, he would have been speedily carved up into the ABC multiple-source hypothesis (pg. 97).

The bottom line for these scholars is their desire to demonstrate that the Jewish faith was not revealed by God but evolved throughout many centuries of human editing of the biblical text. Still we cannot be sure another computer software program will be used again in later years to disprove the Bible and merely prove the obvious - if you start with the premise the Scriptures are not the Word of God, you will reach that same conclusion whether you're living in the late nineteenth century or the year 2012.

Jewish Community Concerned Over PCUSA's Kairos Palestine Document

2011-06-29T17:03:00.000-07:00

From the Religion News Service, I reproduce a press release that came out this Monday from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. The press releases is very clear on its concern with the flawed PCUSA Kairos Palestine Document.

SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER EXTREMELY CONCERNED BY FLAWED PRESBYTERIAN PALESTINIAN ‘KAIROS’ STUDY GUIDE

The Simon Wiesenthal Center voices its profound disappointment that the Presbyterian Church—USA (PCUSA) study guide does not accurately portray the Kairos Palestine Document (KPD) for what it is: a revisionist document of hatred for Israel and contempt of Jews.

In late 2009, a group of Palestinian clergy issued the Kairos Palestine Document (KPD). It cast a political agenda in theological garb, re-writing history, ignoring Jewish roots and presence in the Holy Land for thousands of years. It placed all blame for the tragic circumstances of Palestinians on Israel, and none on the actions of Palestinians who blew up innocent Israelis in restaurants and launched rockets at school busses. It urged Christians to revert to the replacement theology that denied legitimacy of Judaism and Jews. It called for full boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. In the arena of words and policies, it was a declaration of war on the Jewish state, and a demand that all Christians join in the battle.

Jewish groups were highly critical of KPD, along with many Christian voices. As a result, PCUSA’s General Assembly (GA) last year voted only to embrace Kairos’ calls for “hope for liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy, and reconciliation,” and commissioned a study guide, which was released last week.

“Our hopes that this guide would instruct readers on both sides of the conflict,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Jewish human rights NGO. “Instead, to the ordinary reader, it reads like an endorsement of the Kairos document by the leadership of the Church. Where the guide does offer suggestions for reading, it chooses almost exclusively from documents long criticized as hostile to Israel.”

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, the Center’s Director of Interfaith Affairs, attended last year’s GA, and was part of the group that brokered the new “Spirit of Minneapolis” that is supposed to put Church policies and materials on a more even keel. He said, “The Jewish community is mindful and appreciative of the great effort that a few members of the Monitoring Group expended in preventing an even worse document. But clearly, there are elements entrenched in Church leadership who have not worked for the reconciliation of Palestinians and Israelis, nor for the majority of Presbyterians who look favorably upon Israel, while mindful of their responsibilities to Palestinian Christians.”

“Many hoped that the ‘Spirit of Minneapolis’ would produce reach change in a short period of time,” continued Rabbi Adlerstein. “It looks like the more likely source of progress will come from the rank and file Church members, who we can only hope will prepare their own study guide that will shed light, not heat on the complicated Israel/Palestine issue,” Rabbi Adlerstein concluded.

Ernest Hemingway and the Sin of Ungratefulness

2011-06-28T16:44:00.000-07:00

One of the worst deficiencies in a human being is the inability to show appreciation to another person for their kindness or generosity. In the current age of entitlement it comes as no shock that many individuals lean towards being thankless moochers without a sense of gratefulness.

Ernest Hemingway, the greatly admired American writer, was no exception. According to Paul Johnson in his excellent book, Intellectuals, in Hemingway's adolescence the author rejected the religion and moral culture of his parents.

in 1920 when Hemingway came home from the Great War after serving in an ambulance unit, he was a bit of a war hero. But he embarrassed his parents by failing to find a job and remained somewhat idle.

In July that year, his mother Grace, wrote her son a letter that was the straw that broke the camel's back in their relationship. She wrote in her letter that when a child is born into the world, he or she makes withdrawals from his mother like a bank. The child draws and draws without making any deposits throughout his or her childhood.

Now that her son was a young man, Grace wrote a carefully crafted note to him to remind him of his need for maturation:

The account needs some deposits by this time, some good-sized ones in the way of gratitude and appreciation, interest in Mother's ideas and affairs. Little comforts provided for her home; a desire to favor any of Mother's peculiar prejudices, on no account to outrage her ideas. Flowers, fruit or candy, or something pretty to wear, brought home to Mother with a kiss and a squeeze . . . A surreptitious paying of bills, just to get them off Mother's mind . . . deposits which keep the account in good standing. Many mothers I know are receiving these and much more substantial gifts and returns from sons of less abilities than my son.

Unless, you, my son, Ernest, come to yourself. cease your lazy loafing and pleasure seeking. . . stop trading on your handsome face. . . and neglecting your duties to God and your Savior, Jesus Christ . . . there is nothing before you but bankruptcy: You have overdrawn.

From this letter Hemingway went into a fury and settled into a deep hatred for his mother. In fact this hatred lasted for the rest of his life. To his fellow writers he usually referred to his mother as "that bitch."

I bring up this incident as an example of an intellectual who despite such novels as The Sun Also Rises and Farewell to Arms was lacking in simple human love and gratitude. Like most intellectuals Hemingway was a self-made man, a person with no need for God and focused on his own individualism.

As a man who considered religion as a "menace to human happiness," it became apparent that this American writer needed the relationship with God his parents wanted him to enjoy. Instead, he worshipped his own need for fulfillment and ended up as a loveless, individualist who is much like people today who are content with a godless existence and the resulting lack of higher virtues they display.

Presbyterian Kairos Palestine Document Shows True Anti-Israel Colors

2011-06-27T16:44:00.000-07:00

In my previous blog I introduced the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s Kairos Palestine Document (KPD). KPD,written by an ecumenical group of Palestinian Christians, was released publicly on December 11, 2009. This manifesto was released by the PCUSA to let the world know what is taking place in Palestine, according to Palestinian Christians.

The goal of the KPD to call the "international community to stand by the Palestinian people." At the 219th General Assembly (2010) of the PCUSA, the full document was approved to the church for study and to endorse its emphases on "hope, liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy and reconciliation."

Let it be known that the desire of those who recommended the KPD was for others to hear the "often neglected voice of the Palestinian Christian." Unfortunately, the Palestinian Christian voice managed to distort the Israeli perspective and gave the PCUSA a dangerously one-sided perspective on the Middle East conflict.

As one reads through the KPD, several glaring anti-Israel messages are observed. As a result of reading through this document and noting its anti-Israel stance, I strongly urge this document should be further challenged and rejected by the PCUSA leadership.

Full blame for the current Middle East problem is placed on the occupation. The document assumes that if Israel would end the "occupation" then peace would result. However, one would need to be quite naive to believe this falsehood. Consider the continued military attacks that were initiated by the Palestinian Gaza towards Israel when the Jewish nation withdrew from Gaza.

Today there is a strong call for Israel to unconditionally lift its embargo against Gaza for humanitarian reasons. Yet there are no safeguards offered that would stop the flow of rockets and weaponry to be used by Hamas against Israelis if the embargo is lifted.

The vision of Israel by the KPD committee is a non-Jewish Israel. Despite the long term stance of the PCUSA that affirmed Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, the KPD calls for an international Israel.

In KPD 2.3 the document states, "we believe our land has a universal mission. The text states, "In this universality, the meaning of the promises, of the land, of the election, of the people of God open up to include all of humanity, starting from all the peoples of the land."

These words are a clear rejection of the Jewish Scriptures which call the people of Israel, God's elect chosen to dwell in clear geographically boundaries within the Holy Land. In KPD 2.3 the writers expose their theological prejudice towards replacement theology in which the God's promises once made to Israel are given to the church.

Yes, it is God's intent for the nations of the world to come to Israel to worship the God of Israel and for the Law to go forth from Jerusalem to all the nations (Isaiah 2). But God never pronounced that the international blessings of the world through Israel meant that Israel would become unnecessary and be replaced by an international entity. In all the passages describing a future messianic kingdom, Israel continues to exists and remains the key nation under the rulership of the Messiah King through which God's blessings to the nations flow forth. Israel is never replaced for a universal non-descript entity.

Thus, the KPD undermines the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

The security of Israel is ignored in the KPD and only challenges the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It is surprising to read a document written by Christians who have no problem condemning Israel's "occupation" of Palestinian territory, yet the same document fails to condemn the violence committed by Palestinian terrorists. In my writings I have brought up this point as a major flaw in the Palestinian Christian's call for non-violence in dealing with Israeli soldiers.

I find the Palestinian Christian attempt to paint themselves as peaceful and advocates of a "love thy enemy" theology to be a serious misuse of this New Testament passage. This is especially true when these proponents of non-violence fail to condemn the violent actions of their own Palestinian leaders.

In relation to Israel's right to protect itself against terrorist attacks, the KPD claims Israel used Palestinian terrorist attacks as a "pretext to accuse the Palestinians of being terrorists and was able to distort the real nature of the conflict, presenting it as an Israeli war against terror, rather than an Israeli occupation faced by Palestinian legal resistance aiming at ending it" (KPD 1.5).

The KPD does not require that the Palestinian government be held to the same standards as for the Israeli government.

Palestinian Christians are quick to point towards the poverty suffered by their people, but rarely hold their own government responsible for relieving the financial burdens of their people. It's quite amazing that the Palestinian ruling authority has enough financial capital to purchase arms to use against Israel but cannot feed their own people. It's also uncanny that the Palestinians are supported by Iran, Syria and Egypt in order to arm itself against Israel but once again, they fail to use these funds to improve the living conditions of their own people.

The KPD is filled with many inconsistencies and historical flaws regarding the background of the Middle East conflict. I strongly suggest the PCUSA make every attempt to work with Jewish organizations and the Jewish community to provide a balance in their perspective on the Arab/Israel crisis.

The failure to include any Jewish authorities in compiling this report on the Middle East tempts one to believe that the PCUSA had no interest in presenting a balanced view on this most important conflict. Rather, they used this committee that composed the KPD an an opportunity to bias the PCUSA against Israel.

Presbyterian Kairos Palestine Document Takes A Swing at Israel

2011-06-24T18:50:00.000-07:00

Since the Presbyterian Church (USA) ended its General Assembly July 2010, the denomination has made itself clear on its one-sided stance against Israel regarding the Middle East conflict.

In an excellent article "Oslo Syndrome Redux?" summarizing the anti-Zionist element within the PCUSA by Dexter Van Zile, he argues that despite several compromises in their commentary on the Arab-Israel conflict, "there is still some committed anti-Zionists in this church who are obsessed about Jewish influence on American politics and who want others to embrace this obsession." The church, Van Zile says, has realized that it needs to figure out a way to advocate for the Palestinian cause without demonizing Israel.

Background

Let me back up and provide background on the PC (USA) when it comes to Israel. Existing within the church is a bloc of anti-Israel activists who have tried to portray Israel as the chief culprit for the problematic Arab/Israel conflict. These individuals have submitted overtures to meetings of local presbyteries.

These overtures have ignored the terrorist activities of the Palestinians and focused on Israeli policies. Once these overtures are submitted and passed by the local groups, they advance to the General Assembly, the PC (USA)'s national stage.

     The 2004 anti-Israel overture. In 2004 an anti-Israel divestment resolution that was submitted by a presbytery in Florida was approved by the GA. The overture claimed Israel is the cause of the violence against innocent Palestinians. Again, the resolution, like many of them, failed to mention the part Islamic groups played in creating violence in Israel. The passage of this resolution appeared to be a great victory for the anti-Zionists within the PC (USA).

   The 2006 overturn of the 2004 resolution. Jewish leaders along with Presbyterian pastors and laity most likely complained about the 2004 resolution. So at the next GA two years later, the assembly overturned the 2004 vote that focused on Israel for divestment. Oddly, the local presbyteries did not single out any other nation for divestment other than Israel. It doesn't take a genius to figure out other nations could have been called out for human rights violations.

     The 2010 divestment resolutions. The local presbyteries were still bent on singling out Israel for punishment by the PC (USA). A number of resolutions were brought before the GA in 2010. Two overtures called for the denomination to divest (to deprive of financial support) from Caterpillar because the company supplies tractors and bulldozers to Israel.

Israel would often bulldoze the homes of Palestinian terrorists especially if that person was involved in a brutal attack on innocent Israelis. Both the home and the family dwelling in the home were displaced because of the terrorist actions of one of its family members.

   The report of the Middle East Study Committee (MESC). Apart from the above mentioned overtures, none of them were as bad as the 172 page report prepared by a nine-member MESC. This committee was responsible for providing a comprehensive report on the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

The resulting report "Breaking Down the Walls" was damaging to Israel and lacked any concern for Israel's security. The report was unfortunately passed by the GA . . . but in an altered form while retaining its anti-Israel bias.

"Breaking Down the Walls" was seen by Presbyterians for Middle East Peace as "unbalanced, historically inaccurate, theologically flawed and politically damaging."

   The creation of the Kairos Palestine Document. The 219th GA created a special "Monitoring Group on Middle East Policy" (MGMEP). One of the tasks given to the MGMEP was to create a study guide for the Kairos Palestine Document, a so-called compromise for not accepting the "Breaking Down the Walls" report. As we shall see, it isn't much of a compromise.

The study guide was intended to endorse the document's focus on the hope of "liberation, non-violence, love of enemy and reconciliation." Earlier this month, the study guide was released . The study guide and accompanying document was solely meant to address the concerns raised by Palestinian Christians.

The Kairos Palestine Document was released on December 11, 2009 in Bethlehem. The paper was composed by an ecumenical group of Palestinian Christians who wanted to show the world what was taking place in their land. It cannot over overlooked that board of theologians and pastors who composed the KPD were all Palestinian!

On the Kairos Palestine website the purpose of the document is spelled out:

This document is the Christian Palestinians’ word to the world about what is happening in Palestine. It is written at this time when we wanted to see the Glory of the grace of God in this land and in the sufferings of its people. In this spirit the document requests the international community to stand by the Palestinian people who have faced oppression, displacement, suffering and clear apartheid for more than six decades. The suffering continues while the international community silently looks on at the occupying State, Israel.

The document continues its biased intent:

In this historic document, we Palestinian Christians declare that the military occupation of our land is a sin against God and humanity, and that any theology that legitimizes the occupation is far from Christian teachings because true Christian theology is a theology of love and solidarity with the oppressed, a call to justice and equality among peoples.

Notice that the Kairos Palestine Document (KPD) does not represent the Israeli perspective but solely the Palestinian viewpoint. There is nothing mentioned about Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israel. The document uses the terms "occupying Israel" to prejudice the reader against Israel.

In addition, the KPD condemns any theology that would show support for Israel, which is akin to a theology which "legitimizes the occupation." In other words, the KPD only allows for a replacement theology in which the church is now the new Israel and all the promises God made to Israel concerning the Holy Land are null and void.

I have a lot more to say about the KPD, which I will leave for my next blog. The flaws and dangers of the KPD cannot be tossed aside. If you are a member of a Presbyterian Church (USA), I implore you to speak to your pastor or leadership board about their position on this document. Voice your concerns about the infiltration of an strong anti-Zionist contingency in the denomination.

Lynne Hybels On A Pro-Palestinian Christian Tour

2011-06-23T16:45:00.000-07:00

Bill Hybels, pastor of mega church Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois, has been frequently featured on the media's list of Who's Who. Not too long ago Pastor Hybels introduced President Clinton as a guest at a Willow Creek church leadership conference. Hybels also offered the president spiritual counsel in the aftermath of Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Currently Hybels, pastor of the one of the world's most influential seeker friendly churches has taken a back seat on the media radar screen to his wife Lynne.

One Christian blog reports Ms. Hybels has become a "woman on a mission."

Lynne Hybels

In light of a past encounter with Palestinian Christian Sami Awad, director of the Holy Land Trust, the pastor's wife spent time with him in Palestine, and the encounter changed her perspective on the Israel Palestinian issue.

At a recent meeting at her home, the film The Little Town of Bethlehem produced by evangelical Christians was screened. According to the film's promotional blog, the documentary "shares the gripping story of three men—a Palestinian Muslim, a Palestinian Christian, and an Israeli Jew—each born into violence but willing to risk everything to bring an end to violence in their lifetime." Sami Awad is the Palestinian Christian in the film and was present at the meeting.

When introducing Awad after the 77 minute film, Lynne Hybels declared, "I want to introduce you to my hero."

Upon closer examination of The Little Town of Bethlehem, I observed the production to be filled with historical inaccuracies about the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, places the majority of the blame for the lack of peace in the disputed territories on Israel, fails to even mention the fact the majority of the Palestinian population voted for Hamas, a terrorist organization, to govern them. These historical distortions and omissions casts a disingenuous shadow on this evangelical documentary.

In The Little Town of Bethlehem (LTOB) Awad and others compare their non-violent movement to that of Martin Luther King. However, this comparison is seriously flawed. The film fails to mention that during the civil rights movement blacks in the South never performed terrorist acts against the white community. Blacks did not walk into segregated schools or lunch counters in the southern U.S. as suicide bombers with bombs strapped to their backs.

Awad claims to be firmly against demonizing Israelis. Yet throughout The Little Town of Bethlehem the demonization of Israeli soldiers was a continuing theme. In addition, this Palestinian biased film gave a pass to the radical terrorism perpetrated by the Palestinian people and their Arab neighbors since the War of Independence of 1948. Palestinian terrorism was not even alluded to in the film. I felt I was watching a propaganda films produced by Nazi propaganda expert Joseph Goebbels.

Regarding LTOB, Hybels commented, "Little Town of Bethlehem has challenged me to ask on a deeper level, ‘What does it mean to follow Jesus into the brokenness of this fragmented, hate-filled, fearful world?’” She hopes its influence can be extended: “I think every American—certainly every Christian—should watch this film!”

Well, the film is definitely getting some nationwide exposure. The next stop for The Little Town of Bethlehem is a screening at the Wild Goose Film Festival a Christian music festival that is to be held near Chapel Hill, NC.

After the documentary film is screened Saturday, June 25, Brian McLaren, the father of the controversial emergent church, Lynne Hybels, and Ian Cron, an episcopalian priest will serve on a panel to discuss the film. I wonder if the Israeli side will be presented. I doubt it. I guess this is what it means to "to follow Jesus into the brokenness of this fragmented, hate-filled, fearful world."

So where does mega-church pastor Bill Hybels stand on his wife's involvement with the pro-Palestinian Christian movement? One can only draw hasty conclusions as Lynne Hybels appears to be delving deeper and deeper into a non-violent Palestinian Christian movement that fails to see the violence of their own people and casts the blame for the Middle East crisis on Israel alone.

Why Israel Cannot Go Back to Pre-1967 Borders

2011-06-20T15:08:00.000-07:00

Thinking Outside the Blog exists to not only make comments on current events - political and religious - but to also provide historical information on the Middle East conflict. It is my conviction that much discussion on the news and in the blogosphere is based on a lack of accurate historical information. I fear that individuals form their opinions about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict from last night's evening news sound bytes.

I am most concerned with President Obama's suggestion that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders. Those borders are shown on the following map:

One can see from this map that there was not much area between the borders of the West Bank to the Mediterranean Sea. Hostile Palestinian forces or other terrorist entities in the West Bank had the advantage over Israel since some of the land area between the West Bank and Israel's West Coast was as small as 9 miles (Netanya is one example)!

Israel needs defensible borders to prevent ground assaults. Israel's return to pre-1967 borders would provide Arab states and the Palestinians with the ability to launch ground and missile attacks on the Jewish state with ease.

The most effective military strategy by Israeli's enemies would be to attack at the narrowest point using ground troops and cut Israel in half, thus isolating northern and southern Israel with an enemy military zone in the middle.

I cannot emphasize enough that with the pre-1967 lines, the boundaries of the West Bank would be 9 miles of the Israeli coast, 11 miles from Tel Aviv, 10 miles from Beersheba and 21 miles from Haifa.

Consequently, Israel needs to push its border as far East as possible in order to be put some distance between the Israeli population and the Palestinian capability of ground or missile attacks.

While living in Hollywood, CA when I first moved to the West Coast, I would be very concerned if missiles were being fired over the Hollywood Hills from northern Van Nuys. I would want to put as much distance as possible from the source of these missile attacks and myself, In addition, I would want military troops stationed as close to Van Nuys as possible to control any enemy attacks and engage the enemy. I would also support checkpoints for individuals leaving Van Nuys and trying to enter Hollywood with evil designs to cause more havoc.

In the next map from 2002 one can see the importance of Israel maintaining a buffer zone of security between the West Bank and Jordan.

It should not be any surprise that attacks by Arab states were more frequent before 1967. Prior to the Six Day War Palestinian attackers used Syria and Jordan as a home base for attacking Israel.

Another important reason Israel cannot go back to the pre-1967 borders is that Israel would have to give up its present-day system of early warning radar set up in the hills of Judea and Samaria.

With this early warning system Israel can maintain its ability to deploy surface-to-air missiles in the case of attack by an Arab state.

In addition, the citizens of Israel are given enough time to relocate to places where shelter is provided from incoming missiles after being warned by an air raid warning. If Israel was to give back the locations where the early warning radar is set up, the Jewish state would give up its own security.

Based on this 2002 map of modern day Israel one observes the need for Israel to maintain a military presence in the Jordan River Valley to the east of the West Bank. Without this military presence there would be no security between Israel and Jordan. Terrorist groups would have open access to enter the country through the West Bank.

Israel must maintain its military control, not occupy, the adjoining areas to the West Bank.

To put things in proper perspective, I've included another map of Israel, but this one shows the area Israel controlled after the Six Day War. In comparison, this map shows shows what territories Israel has already given up.

During the Six Day War Israel took military control over the Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank. In post Six Day War peace negotiations Israel gave back 94% of the land that came under IDF control.

Now two million Arabs live in the West Bank. In recent years, the infiltration of Palestinian terrorists from the Palestinian Authority has increased. May of these infiltrators have included suicide bombers. In addition, 1.5 million Arabs live in Israel itself in such towns as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Also, since the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel has withdrawn from 40% of the West Bank. The Oslo Accords were:

. . . . a framework for the future relations between the two parties. The Accords provided for the creation of a Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The Palestinian Authority would have responsibility for the administration of the territory under its control. The Accords also called for the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

In a post Six Day War world, Israel has returned to the Palestinians a vast amount of formerly Israeli controlled territory.

To return back to the pre-1967 borders would be suicide for Israel. The Jewish state would lose its military security which is a necessity as long as Israel is adjoined to the Palestinian state under the control of the self-proclaimed terrorist organization, Hamas.

Thus far Hamas has given Israel no indication that Israeli citizens will be free from terrorist attacks from radical Palestinians nor has Hamas renounced it failure to recognize the Jewish state or to back off from their goal to destroy Israel.

Unless there is a change in the stance of Hamas, Israel can never go back to the pre-1967 borders for the sake of the security of the Jewish state and its citizens - both Arab and Jewish.

Non-Violent Palestinian Christians Living in a Culture of Hate

2011-06-17T17:05:00.000-07:00

In this blog I've previously mentioned Palestinian Christian, Sami Awad. Awad is the executive director of Holy Land Trust. The mission statement of HLT is stated on its website:

Through a commitment to the principles of nonviolence, the Holy Land Trust seeks to strengthen and empower the Palestinian community in developing spiritual, pragmatic and strategic approaches that will allow it to resist all forms of oppression and build a future that makes the Holy Land a global model and pillar of understanding, respect, justice, equality and peaceful coexistence.

Sami claims to be deeply committed to the principles of non-violence as a way to deal with the Middle East conflict. Yet he fails to ever condemn his own Palestinian brothers who endorse a violent solution to peace with the Israelis. In other words, peace will come when Israel is destroyed.

In his lecture at the 2010 Christ At the Checkpoint conference, Mr. Awad describes an opportunity he was given to tour several Nazi death camps including Auschwitz. This experience was part of a retreat provided by Peace Maker Circle International. They bring people from all over the world to allow them to experience the tragedy that happened to the Jewish people as well as other ethnic groups in Auschwitz.

Sami tells of an experience he observed which he shared in the lecture, an experience he also shared in the evangelical produced film The Little Town of Bethlehem, a film that takes the viewer into the heart of the Israel/Palestine conflict but with a strong Palestinian twist.

Here is what the Holy Land Trust director tells the audience in his lecture about his experience at Auschwitz;

we witnessed hundreds of young Israelis (12‐16 years old), come to visit the place in tours organized by Israel. They would wear big Israeli flags on their back and walk on the railway in Birkenua singing nationalist songs. They would take the tour of the site and then sit in circles similar to what we were doing, and then the Israeli guide would begin talking.

At this time you imagine how important it is for the guide to tell these children how important it is that something like this does not happen again. Something else was happening.

These guides were telling the children, “You see what happened to your grandparents, great‐uncles, and great‐aunts? Well this is not over. You are living in that same threat and if given the opportunity, Palestinians, Muslims, Arabs will do the same to you.”

The point of Awad's observation is that Israeli children are growing up in a culture of fear and hate. Awad continues:

Then this 18 year old is handed a machine gun, thrown at a checkpoint in the West Bank that has nothing to do with providing any security for Israel and is now told, deal with the new “Nazi”…. Fear is planted in their heart from day one.

The irony of Awad's observation is that he ignores how deeply embedded is the culture of hate among Palestinians.

Here in a video called Hamas Kids Play the viewer is shown what the land of Israel is up against as Palestinian children are taught from a young age that terrorism is acceptable and part of the Palestinian mindset.

In this video we observe Palestinian children dressed as suicide bombers and displaying bloody hands. Again, Sami Awad, the director of the Holy Land Trust has hypocritically leveled his attacks of violence against Israelis while ignoring the violence that is so much a part of his own Palestinian culture.

If Awad, a Palestinian, is truly a Christian for non-violence, then why is it that he and his other non-violent supports fail to confront the violence in the Hamas controlled entity of Palestine?

Fabricated Ben Gurion Quote Used in Pro-Palestinian Evangelical Film

2011-06-11T21:58:00.000-07:00

The Committee on Accuracy on Middle East Reporting's blog exposes a glaring inaccuracy in the 2010 documentary "With God On Our Side." The film produced by Rooftop Production LLC is an evangelical response to Christian Zionism.

The film's Facebook page describes the production:

With God On Our Side takes a look at the theology of Christian Zionism, which teaches that because the Jews are God's chosen people, they have a divine right to the land of Israel. Aspects of this belief system lead some Christians in the West to give uncritical support to Israeli government policies, even those that privilege Jews at the expense of Palestinians, leading to great suffering among Muslim and Christian Palestinians alike and threatening Israel's security as a whole.

The accompanying study guide to the film was mostly taken from evangelical pastor Stephen Sizer's book, Zion’s Christian Soldiers (Downers Grove, IVP). Sizer, as previously noted in this blog is Vicar of Christ Church in Surrey, UK and has recently been part of a pro-Palestinian forum of speakers in Malaysia which include pro-Hamas speakers and noted anti-Semitic apologists.

With God On Our Side assails Christian Zionists for their alleged failure to think through their support of Israel. According to the CAMERA blog, the film is a "jaundiced summary of Israeli history."

In one scene of this propaganda piece, the narrator reports the following:

In a letter to his son in 1937 David Ben Gurion, who would later become the first Prime Minister of Israel, stated “The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.”

According to the CAMERA post, that even though this quite fits well with producer Porter Speakman's agenda, it’s nothing but a fabrication. It's a fake quote that was debunked well before the 2010 release date of With God On Our Side.

I quote from a portion of a letter from Benney Morris to the Independent, UK dated November 2006 that proves the usage of the Ben Gurion quote in With God on Our Side is a fabrication:

Hari quotes David Ben-Gurion as saying in 1937: ‘I support compulsory transfer ... The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.’ The first part of the quote (‘I support compulsory transfer’) is genuine; the rest (‘The Arabs will have to go ... such as a war’) is an invention, pure and simple, either by Hari or by whomever he is quoting (Ilan Pappe?)

It is true that Ben-Gurion in 1937-38 supported the transfer of the Arabs out of the area of the Jewish state-to-be – which was precisely the recommendation of the British Royal (Peel) Commission from July 1937, which investigated the Palestine problem. The commission concluded that the only fair settlement was by way of partition, with the Jews receiving less than 20 per cent of Palestine, but that, for it to be viable, the 20 per cent should be cleared of potentially hostile, disloyal Arabs. (Britain, incidentally, at the end of World War II supported the expulsion to Germany of the German Sudeten minority, which had helped Hitler destroy and occupy Czechoslovakia – for precisely the same reasons.) The Arabs, then and later, rejected the principle of partition as well as the specific Peel proposals.

Neither Ben-Gurion nor the Zionist movement ‘planned’ the displacement of the 700,000-odd Arabs who moved or were removed from their homes in 1948. There was no such plan or blanket policy. Transfer was never adopted by the Zionist movement as part of its platform; on the contrary, the movement always accepted that the Jewish state that arose would contain a sizeable Arab minority.

But in 1947-48 the Palestinian Arabs, joined by invading Arab states’ armies from outside, launched a war whose aim – which they (and even Pappe, Israel’s Lord Haw-Haw) have never denied – was to destroy the nascent state of Israel (and quite probably its inhabitants as well). But – what can you do? – the Arabs were beaten. And in the course of beating them, the Israelis drove out the Palestinians, who were not ‘totally innocent ... peasants’ (a ludicrous phrase). Their villages and towns served as the bases from which their militiamen and armies attacked Jewish communities and convoys.

The ‘innocent’ Palestinians were the aggressors – and dispossession was the price they paid for their aggression. In the circumstances, had the Jews not driven them out, Israel would not have arisen and its (Jewish) population would have been slaughtered – or, at the least, the Jewish state would have been established with a considerable Fifth Column in its midst and rendered mortally unstable. (Conversely, had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN Partition Resolution, refrained from violence, and gone on with their lives as loyal Israeli citizens, nothing would have happened to them.)

Nonetheless, Israel emerged from the 1948 War with a 160,000-strong Arab minority (alongside 700,000 Jews) – a fact that tends to undermine the charge that there was a blanket policy of ethnic cleansing.

It is important that evangelicals who view the film With God On Our Side are equipped with factual information that debunk the lies and deliberate historical inaccuracies that are found in the Rooftop Productions film.

Who are the True Enemies of Palestinian Christians?

2011-06-11T10:39:00.000-07:00

Who are the enemies of the Christian that Jesus commands us to love and pray for? According to Sami Awad, Executive Director of the Holy Land Trust, the enemies Jesus tells him to love and pray for are Israeli soldiers. So when he is instructed as a Christian in Matthew 5:44 to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you", Mr. Awad applies this passage from the Sermon on the Mount to the Israel Defense Force.

In a June 2, 2011 blog post on Huffington Post, entitled, "WWJD? A Non-Violent Conflict Resolution for Palestine," Mr. Awad, a Palestinian Christian states,

How could a person living under military occupation, experiencing first-hand suffering and humiliation, even think about loving the enemy, let alone urge family, friends and neighbors to do the same? This challenging message came from a young rabbi named Jesus in his "Sermon on the Mount.

Of course, Jesus could have suggested we make peace with our enemies or negotiate peace agreements or peacefully resolve conflict; those statements would have been as shocking to the suffering Jews of that time. Instead, he entreated them to go further: to "love" them. This was the word he chose -- a command to all those who seek to follow him.

First, let us not ignore the context of Matthew 5:44 about loving our enemies before we start love bombing every thing that moves and breathes. The context of the passage is first century Israel which was under the control of Roman imperialism. Jesus is speaking to first century Jewish people about His messianic kingdom. He is persuading the children of Israel who make up His audience to accept His kingdom manifesto and to embrace Him as the Messiah King-Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus also realizes not all Jewish people are going to accept Jesus as the King Redeemer of Israel and not all Jewish have to this day. Yet Jesus knew that some Jewish people like myself will accept Jesus as Messiah.

Right away a conflict is created. Jesus said this would happen in Matthew 10:34-36

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Honestly, not my favorite Bible passage. But I've experienced hostility from fellow Jewish people because of my commitment to Jesus. It comes with the territory and I understand the historical roots of this enmity.

But what does Jesus tell me to do towards Jewish people or gentiles who stumble over my acceptance of Jesus? To love them and pray for them even if they persecute me. The persecution comes n the form of verbal attacks, the silent treatment as well as through many thought provoking books and articles written by Jewish scholars to disprove the claims of Jesus to be Israel's long-awaited Messiah. So be it.

To Sami Awad, I want to say, Jesus was speaking about a Jewish community issue that only Jewish people would understand.

On the other hand, Christians have quite a lot to answer for the inexcusable and horrendous ways throughout Christian history they've treated Jewish people who have not accepted Jesus. Jewish people have been massacred, tortured, exposed to forced conversions, expelled from European countries and so much more . . . . all because they made a choice not to believe in Jesus. The Christian church, who should know better and which claims to be empowered with the love of Christ lacks any excuse for their persecution and slaughter of Jewish people especially during the Middle Ages.

Sami continues in the Huffington Post article

So while I had grown up knowing about the Sermon on the Mount, living it creates a different meaning and purpose. The first step in loving the enemy is to love and honor myself as a person loved by God, to break free from the fear and hatred within me, and to no longer claim victimization and seek pity as a result of the oppressive forces around me.

So the enemies that surround Mr. Awad are the "oppressive forces around him" - Israeli soldiers dedicated to protecting Israel from Palestinian terrorists meant to do harm to innocent Israelis. Where in the Sermon on the Mount does Jesus refer to military personnel, political or nation enemies as the adversaries He is referring to? He doesn't.

Taking Sami Awad's incorrect interpretation of Matthew 5:44, he needs to stop pointing his finger at the Israelis as the "enemies", but he, as a Christian, should look in his own backyard for the real enemies of peace.

It's not the Israeli soldiers that are the enemies of peace between Palestinians and Israeli. Rather, the real enemies are the Palestinians that have embraced terrorism as the means to peace.

If Sami and the members of the Holy Land Trust want to use non-violent means to create peace, they best use their efforts to confront their own terrorist government Hamas. In addition, these Palestinian Martin Luther King wannabes should look at their own people who cowardly send children and women into Israeli territories with bombs strapped to their backs in order to blow up innocent humans - Jewish, Christian and Muslim. Shrapnel makes no religious distinctions.

By Sami Awad's failure to condemn the terrorism of his own people, he drops the ball of Christian love by not confronting the enemies - his fellow Palestinians Muslims - of not only Jewish people but Christians as well.

WWJD? Jesus would tell Sami Awad and his followers to begin their non-violent quest and go before Hamas, Hizbolleh and other terrorist groups who are finding safe refuge in the Palestinian entity and face them with their evil and lack of respect for human life. Use blockades, protests, peace marches and sit downs in the Palestinian territories and tell your own people to stop sending Katyusha rockets from Gaza into Israel.

Finally, if non-violent Palestinian Christians want to create a conflict resolution peacefully, then the best approach to take is to ask Palestinian leaders in Fatah and Hamas to accept the existence of the state of Israel.

The present issue is not about borders, Israeli settlers in the West Bank, the security wall or Israeli checkpoints. The only issue is about the refusal by Arab and militant Islamic leaders to fail to accept the existence of the state of Israel.

Israeli PM Netanyahu, in his speech before the US Congress, a few weeks ago said that Israel will accept a Palestinian state. Where has there been a reciprocal response from any Palestinian leader about accepting a Jewish state?

All I hear from your leaders, my Christian brother Sami Awad, is a call for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish people. Those who call for the annihilation of Israel and the Jews are enemies of the God of Israel and your enemies as well.

44 Years Later - Israel's Land Giveaway But Still No Peace

2011-06-08T17:15:00.000-07:00

Forty four years ago I arrived in South Vietnam, landing at the Bien Hoa Air Base on May 18, 1967. The troop carrier plane on which I was a passenger hit the runway amidst Viet Cong mortar fire. It was my first good look at the Vietnam war.

After a few days, I was given assignment papers that destined me to an amphibious craft unit in Cam Rahn Bay. After a few weeks of settling into my job as a marine diesel mechanic, I received another set of orders telling my unit to pack up and be prepared to leave Vietnam.

It was the first week of June 1967. I soon learned our unit was on alert to travel to Israel to provide transport support for Israeli troops in the Sinai in their attack on the Egyptian army. As a solder and a young Jewish man I was eager to go to Israel to defend the country of my heritage.

However, the war only lasted six days, thank God, and Israel was clearly the victor in their engagements with Syria, Jordan and Egypt. As a result of the Six Day War Israel controlled land that included the Sinai, the Gaza Strip, the entire West Bank and the addition of East Jerusalem.

After peace talks and UN negotiations Israel gave back 94% of the land they controlled through conquering the Arab aggressors. Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt and Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians or Jordanians. Israel hoped that with this gigantic land give-away there would be peace and the Palestinians and their Arab brothers would drop their goal to remove the Jewish presence from the land of Israel.

The one thing a student of Israel's history will learn is that Israel's conflict with the Palestinians is never about borders or land. It's always about Israel's right to exist.

It is foolish for Israelis, Americans and especially evangelical Christians now being courted by Palestinian Christians to think that if Israel gives the West Bank back to the Palestinians, there will be peace. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The only way peace will come in the Middle East is if the Jewish people living in Israel are annihilated by the surrounding Arab and militant Islamic nations. To the Palestinian when Israel ceases to exists, there will be peace in the Middle East.

To show you what Israel has given away for peace, the map below lays out thirty four years of Israel giving away more and more land to the Palestinians. And what do they have to show for it? A demand for more land give aways and more Palestinian rockets from Gaza killing innocent Israeli citizens.

Let not Christians be fooled by Palestinian Christians who sidestep historical facts and try to persuade evangelicals that the Israelis are the enemies. The more land Israel has given to the Palestinians, the less respected they are by Arabs and militant Muslims and the more these enemies attack the Jewish nation.

This map provides tangible proof that the falsehood of "land for peace" can no longer be tolerated. The only key to peace in the Middle East is for the Palestinian government made up of Fatah and the terrorist Hamas to accept Israel's right to exist and to drop their commitment to destroy Eretz Yisrael.

Anglican Pastor Sizer Hobnobs With Pro Hamas Groups

2011-06-07T19:02:00.000-07:00

If you care about Israel, you'll become familiar with the name Stephen Sizer. Sizer, the Anglican pastor of Christ Church in Surrey, UK, is well known in an evangelical circles. Sizer is also well known in pro-Hamas and antisemitic circles as I will show the reader.

Vicar Stephen Sizer

Stephen has accumulated an impressive list of Christian credentials during his twenty eight years of ordained ministry. In fact, according to his bio Sizer is a Trustee of the Biblica Ministries Trust, who sponsored and publish the New International Version (NIV), the most widely used English Bible translation.

But as I started to say, there is another side to Sizer as described on his website:

He is a Patron of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD-UK), a Trustee of Friends of Sabeel UK, a founding member of the Institute for the Study of Christian Zionism (ISCZ), a member of the Advisory Council of Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding (EMEU)

He is also a consultant and contributor to the [anti-Israel and pro-Palestianian-author's remarks] film With God on our Side and the Bible study guide that accompanies the film. . . . He is a contributor to Bridges of Faith, the international Evangelical-Muslim Dialogue Group.

The problem with Sizer's credentials is that once one studies all the groups he associates with, the clearer it becomes that Sizer's major stance is anti-Christian Zionism. In fact, the Vicar has no problems with associating with pro-Hamas groups like Viva Palestina Malaysia and with antisemitic speakers such as Mahathir Mohamad, Azzam Tamimi, and an apologist for anti-Semites Lauren Booth.

Sizer's affiliations are as disturbing as the anti-Israel remarks he makes himself. But to understand the crowd this so-called evangelical hangs out with, let me pull today's blog from a post contributed by Joseph W on the blog Harry's Place:

Anglican Vicar hosted by Far Right Malaysian outfit
Cross-Post, June 5th 2011, 4:00 pm
by Joseph W
In January, this blog reported on the Far Right activities of the anti-Israel outfit Viva Palestina Malaysia.
Stephen Sizer is being hosted by VPM this week – more on him later.
Viva Palestina Malaysia is proudly pro-Hamas. Here is one of VPM’s activists, Azra Banu, meeting the leader of Hamas:
VPM promoted the idea that Jews should all relocate to Siberia, taking their ideas from David Duke’s website:
VPM has chosen to host a range of speakers with extreme views on Israel, including the raging anti-Semite Mahathir Mohamad, Azzam Tamimi, and the apologist for anti-Semites Lauren Booth.
Mahathir has previously stated:
“the Jews for example are not merely hook-nosed, but understand money instinctively.”
“Jewish stinginess and financial wizardry gained them commercial control of Europe and provoked anti-Semitism which waxed and waned in Europe throughout the ages.”
“We do not want to say that this is a plot by the Jews, but in reality it is a Jew who triggered the currency plunge, and coincidentally Soros is a Jew”
“Of late because of their power and their apparent success [the Jews] have become arrogant. And arrogant people, like angry people will make mistakes, will forget to think.”
When Booth visited VPM, she defended Mahathir from charges of anti-Semitism:
If you speak to Dr. Mahathir, it is clear he has neither the personality nor the inclination to be an anti-Semite. He is a thoughtful, pious and philosophical man.
I want to tell the people of Malaysia not to be scared of being labeled anti-Semitic when criticising the unjust, disgraceful behaviour of the Israel regime.
The label ‘anti-Semite’ is applied deliberately to quash debate on the Israeli government and its army and we must not be afraid to speak out (on it).
VPM is the Malaysian chapter of Viva Palestina, which is overtly a pro-Hamas outfit. The team leader of the Malaysian contingent of one of the Viva Palestina convoys is the Nazi apologist Matthias Chang.

Here are some quotes from Chang, addressing Iran’s Holocaust-questioning conference in 2006:
In fact, in the early 1930s, it was the Zionists that declared war on Germany.
[...]
There is an arguable legal case for the proposition that Germany, faced with a Zionist Declaration of War in the early 1930s, had the right to defend itself against the Zionists’ agenda to annihilate Germany and her citizens!
Critics may well counter-argue that the above proposition is ridiculous – how could Zionists, not constituting a nation state declare war on Germany? My reply is simple. If Al Qaeda [and the “Jihadists”] can be accused of declaring war on America and which gave rise to the present Global War on Terror, the World Jewish Congress and allied organisations can likewise be accused for their crimes against Germany!
[...]
Those who continue to promote the political line that the Holocaust is a unique and an exceptional Jewish historical event, when compared to the sufferings of the other victims, such as the Chinese who were slaughtered in excess of 10 million, have to that extent minimised the atrocities committed by both sides in WWII. It is an attempt to white-wash the war crimes of the victors in WWII.
[...]
To accept that the Holocaust was an exceptional Jewish historical event is to deny the genocides, massacres and sufferings inflicted on the rest of mankind throughout history. This cannot be right.
I cannot help but question the motives of those who seek to elevate the sufferings of the Jewish people above those who had suffered as much, if not more from the horrors of the Second World War. And when the sufferings of the Jewish people have turned into an industry we owe a moral duty to the departed to ensure that no one should profit from blood money, more so, when lies are perpetrated to further such profiteering.
If we are gathered here to seek truth and to condemn war crimes, then we must condemn all war crimes, not just those allegedly committed by the defeated in WWII. If we judge Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo as war criminals, then we cannot but find Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin guilty as well.
[...]
We must set up an International Commission of Jurists to review the findings of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal.
We must set up a War Crimes Tribunal to adjudicate on the crimes of all Allied Powers leaders during WWII.
That Booth and Sizer should collude with this political group closely associated with a Nazi-apologist, speaks volumes. Last Friday, and this coming Tuesday, VPM are hosting the “anti-Zionist” vicar Rev Stephen Sizer.

Depressingly, the lectures are being held in the name of interfaith dialogue, in co-ordination with the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies, which is funded by the Malaysian government.
Given that he supports political protests outside synagogues on holy days, Sizer is probably the last person you want at an interfaith conference.

Yet Sizer enjoys evangelising over the world, spreading the Bad News about Israel to the four corners of the Earth, to all who will listen. He has form.

When Sizer went to Indonesia and spoke alongside government officials, he shared a platform with Holocaust denier Fred Tobin, reps from Hamas and Hezbollah, and an apocalyptic imam who believes Israel will be destroyed in 2022.

Sizer has also visited Iran to give a tour speaking about Christian Zionism. He has since claimed that he formed links with the Iranian opposition when he was in the country, although the evidence tells another story.

Sizer has recently caused concern by suggesting that Colonel Gaddafi and his son are linked to Israel and the USA by Jewish blood, which initially prevented the world from imposing a no-fly-zone over Libya.

I know the Church of England doesn’t like getting involved in these matters, but really now: this is the Church that suspended a bishop for offending William and Kate.

Surely the Church should do or say something about a maverick vicar involved in supporting pro-Nazi outfits – all whilst wearing his Anglican clerical collar.

If you wish to complain to the Church, I strongly recommend you contact the Archbishop of Canterbury. I will.

The Subterfuge of Non-Violent Palestinian Christians

2011-06-02T11:23:00.000-07:00

Rich Stearns, president of Christian relief organization World Vision recently spent a memorable meal with Palestinian Christians and 30 American pastors and church leaders in a cave west of Bethlehem. After the half mile hike to reach his destination at the top of a hillside, he was greeted by a sign that read, "We refuse to be enemies."

The West Bank section of land where this Christian gathering took place is a mere 100 acres. However, its Palestinian residents, the Nassars have turned their property into an touch point for demonstrating to evangelical American Christians how unfairly Palestinian Christians are being treated by Israelis.

The Nassars claim they have owned the land since 1916, and according to international law, the territory does not belong to Israel, but to the Nassar family. But currently, according to World Vision President Stearns, the parcel of land is surrounded by 50,000 Israeli settlers, "living on similar land confiscated from other Palestinian families."

The Nassar family remain in a cave because, according to Daoud Nassar, the Israeli government has prohibited them from building structures on the land.

To demonstrate the unfairness of the Israeli government to Palestinian settlers, Stearns reminds readers of his blog, how difficult it was to scale the hill due to the barricades the Jewish government positioned to to close off the only access road the Nassar family has to their own property.

The History of the Nassar Controversy

Gush Etzion

In the World Vision post, Stearns points to 1991 as the time the Israeli government gave notice that they would annex the Nassar land as part of their plan to expand the neighboring Israeli Gush Etzion settlement. In other words, while Israel recognizes the family's property rights to some of the land, about half of the acreage is declared "state land."

The controversy rages around the Israeli law that states Palestinian land that cannot be legally documented back to the Ottoman Empire (The Turks) which would be pre-1917, can be confiscated. If a Palestinian family on the West Bank has lived on a parcel of land for "centuries," says Stearns, and they lack proper documentation required to prove ownership of the land, the family will be booted out.

In 2002 the Nassar family, according to the Israeli newspaper HaAretz, appealed the 1991 decision, but was rejected even though "reliable proof was presented that the land was cultivated for decades".

Nassar's proof consisted of copies of land registration documents from the 1920s that bear the official stamp of the Israeli civil administration. The land was purchased by Nassar's Lebanese grandfather in 1916.

According to CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) the military judge ruling in the trial rejected the challenge by Nassar refusing to accept a hand-drawn map as evidence.

Another issue with Nassar's papers is that they had been honored by the Turkish, British and Jordanian rulers prior to Israel's rule. Turkish or Ottoman rule ended in 1917, when the British conquered the entire region, By 1924 the area had already been under British rule for seven years. So the Turks could not have honored the Nassar's 1924 ownership papers since they were not ruling at that time.

Shaul Goldstein, mayor of Gush Etzion, views the Nassar's claim as another last ditch effort by Arabs to stymie the Jewish settlement effort. Goldstein believes the disputed land has been declared state land and can be developed at the discretion of the Gush Etzion regional council.

Regarding the road built on Nassar's property, Goldstein says that road did not infringe on Nassar's property. Rather, the passageway carved up the hillside in the area that had been declared state property, and the road could have been built on an easier route, says Goldstein, but the Israelis chose to take a more circuitous route to avoid having to cut through Nassar's land. Stearns failed to report that because of the conflict over the land, the settlers decided to stop the road project "until the matter is clarified."

The Symbol of the Nassar Family

One can only imagine how the Nassar family's plight has been used as a symbol of mistreatment of Palestinian families by the Israeli government.

His farm, located on a hill next to the Neve Daniel settlement, now called "The Tent of Nations" has become an attraction for tourists from other countries who travel to Israel on an "occupation fact finding mission".

Now Daoud Nassar has taken his family's plight into the spiritual realm which has captured the attention of American evangelical Christians. "The Tent of Nations" is now a gathering place for Christians who seek peace in the Middle East and try to be both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli. Unfortunately, more and more Christian leaders and their flocks are being duped by the Nassars for lack of information.

Nassar's claim "we refuse to be enemies" raises a lot of question. As a Palestinian Christian he desires not to be enemies with Israelis. So how much has he reached out to Israeli families to befriend them? On his website Nassar uses their slogan "People building bridges." But has he reached out to Israeli families or only to Christians to gain support for his cause?

Is he taking advantage of what appears to be an unfair situation in order to dupe evangelical Christians into supporting him. Daoud wants Christians to meet him as a real person rather than allow American Christians to stereotype him as a terrorist because he is Palestinian.

In addition, the Nassar

Stearns asks whether the American church has turned a blind eye to the persecution of Palestinian families like the Nassars?

The Truth Behind the Nassar's Demolition Orders

In a June 2010 report from Missing Peace, "Demolition Orders and Co-Existence in Gush Etzion", Daoud received nine demolition orders from Israeli authorities. He claims "[Israel} is attempting to break his spirit, he is determined to to fight and conquer this (Israeli) evil."

The statements and claims of Daoud Nassar call for further investigation. So Missing Peace contacted the Civil Administration in Israel, the mayor of Gush Etzion, Shaul Goldstein, as well as Palestinians living near Gush Etzion and the Nassar family. As a result of their investigation, it appears a lot of important information is missing from Nassar's claims.

First, the demolition order was delivered to Daoud Nassar on May 28th, 2010. But the Israel Civil Administration (ICA) argues that the demolition only referred to illegal structures. So the demolition order, according to Nassar, had to to with adding of a structure with a solid roof. Nassar had built those structures adding to legally existing structures without obtaining a permit. So the demolition orders he has received were in fact the result of a court order handed down in 29006 in which the illegal structures were to be removed

Second, Nassar is not the only one receiving demolition orders for illegal building. ICA officials issue between 10 to 15 demolition orders to Gush Etzion weekly, according to Mayor Goldstein. He just wants Nassar to follow the example of other inhabitants of Gush Etzion, to contest the demolition orders.

In addition, Goldstein rejected Nassar's claims that Israeli settlers are treated differently from Israelis by the ICA. Goldsterin cited examples of Gush Etzion settlers who had to demolish structures in the absence of a permit. On addition, Shaul Goldstein added demolition orders have been issued to the outpost Sde Boaz adjacent to Neve Daniel. So where is the basis of Nassar's claim that he is being treated differently simply because he is Palestinian. The Missing Peace article also goes into greater detail on the legality of the the claims of Palestinians farmers whop claim land in Derech Avot. If the lands are state lands, their authorization will be considered but if the buildings are situated on private lands, they inhabitants will be subject to having their demolition orders executed.

The Truth About Nassar's Bridge Building to Israelis

Nassar invites American Christians to his "Tent for All Nations", supported by groups from Germany and Switzerland, but it appears representatives from one nation in particular are missing from his inclusive list - Israel. When questioned by Missing Piece about his relationship with Israelis, Nassar said "he had few or no affiliations." Rather, he mentioned that he was engaged with problems on a regular basis with Jewish people in his proximity. Yet when investigated further, these run-ins with nearby Jews dated back to incidents in the 90s and an incident during the Second Intifada in 2002.

Under his website banner of "Bridges to Peace," Nassar has leaked out to various Christian websites stores about harassment and violence against his property committed by Jews in Gush Etzion. Oddly enough, the Mayor of Gush Etzion claims to have no knowledge of these incidents. Instead, tens of Palestinian farmers work their land in the fields in the same area without any reports of violence or harassing incidents.

Nassar speaks out of both sides of his mouth when he speaks about Israeli and Palestinians meeting to learn more about each other. Yet in his own backyard, he has failed to practice such acts of peaceful co-existence.

Is Nassar pulling the wool over the eyes of American Christians who travel to Israel to hear the Middle East conflict from the Palestinian side? Could it be that evangelicals are being hoodwinked by Palestinian propaganda perpetrated by the Nassar family in order to lure evangelicals away from supporting Israel.?

Nassar has limited his contacts to people who are pro-Palestinian and with those who are opposed to the "occupation." Jesus had much to say about religious people who only had contact with people just like them (Matthew 5:46-48) Nassar appears to be dishonest when he claims he wants co-existence and an end to the enmity between Palestinians and Israelis.

Gush Etzion's mayor recalls co-existence projects in Gush Etzion where Israelis and Palestinians work together on a daily basis. One example of this co-existence occurred in Beit Sakariyah, a Palestinian village located among the Israeli villages of Gush Etzion. There Palestinians are employed by Israelis at a garage and gas station in the area.

Even during the Second Intifada Israeli residents of Efrat, the largest settlement of Gush Etzion, assisted Palestinians with clothing and food. Nassar confessed he had no connection with this co-existence between Arabs and Jews in Gush Etzion.

According to Mayor Goldstein, "the actions of some peace activists and reporters have served to inflame tensions and undermine the efforts to build coexistence with his Arab neighbors."

From the above statement it appears Nassar is misleading fellow non-violent peace activists to disregard laws and to test the Israeli ruling authorities for the sake of gaining publicity. Nassar's behavior as Christian is confusing. I wonder if he has possesses any desire to demonstrate the spirit of Christ to his Israeli neighbors or is he using the dispute over his land as an excuse to influence Christians to turn their backs on Israel?

The Solution to End Nassar's Conflict with Israelis

Nassar spoke to the representatives from Missing Peace and sought their advice as to what he should do about the demolition orders. He was advised to replace the corrugated iron structures with reed mats. These types of structures are permitted to be built without having to gain permission from the ICA. Consequently, Nassar would be able to maintain the use of the land.

CAMERA reports that under the laws of the West Bank, the family never actually owned the land in question. In fact, the land laws are not even Israeli but were passed on to Israel by previous rulers. The land laws are based on the Ottoman Land Code, and Israel was and is obligated to obey them under international laws (Article 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1947) to maintain the legal system in the territories, and to respect the laws in force in the country.

Under the Ottoman Land Code, there are two major categories of land including mulk "property", which is private land, There is no need to cultivate such land to keep rights over it. So if the Nassar land is private, there was no need to cultivate it. But since they cultivated the land as a proof of ownership, they are suggesting the land is not private at all but belongs to the state.

The other category of land is miri, state land in which individuals gain limited rights by consistent cultivation. But the rights of such land is in no way equal to the rights to what is called private property. It is conditional ownership held by grant from the state.

What Nassar owns is land that is property of the state, and only reverts to the state if there is a failure to cultivate the land So the Nassar family never really owned the land in the first place, but held limited rights granted by the state as long as they cultivated the land.

This law has worked in the favor of the Palestinians since 1967. Since that time Palestinian farmers have been able to register state land in their own names in light of their own cultivation of the land.

Summary of Nassar's Claim to Conflict with Israelis

It's not hard to see that Nassar has omitted important information in his statements about the demolition of his property by Israelis. In addition, he or his attorney Jonathan Kuttab, failed to explain the application of the Ottoman Land Code as it applies to the Nassar property.

Nassar would rather have American evangelical pawns believe untruths in order to gain their support than to tell them the truth.

Nassar's Christian claims to desiring peace with Israelis lack substance and evidence. His proclamations of love for his enemies is absent in his actions.

As a Jewish person I have to ask why the Christians who visited the Nassar family near the Gush Etzion settlement, did not also spend time visiting Israeli families to hear "the other side." To return to America and repeat the lies perpetrated by Daoud Nassar is deliberately distributing misinformation and contributing towards the deligitimization of Israel in Christian churches.

What I find most offensive is the fact the Nassars, as Christians, make no statements condemning the evil and terrorism that exists among their own people. Not a word spoken about Palestinian terrorism, suicide bombings, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the PLO or the al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades. Where is their Christians conscience against Palestinian terrorism against Israelis? Do they feel it is justified?

The Nassar family leave us with more unanswered questions than giving us answers to our many question about the Middle East conflict.

Florida's Mr. Nice Guy Islamic Terrorist

2011-05-20T18:29:00.000-07:00

Izhar Khan, iman of a Margate, Florida's mosque was arrested recently on charges of funneling money to Pakistan's Taliban. Southern Florida's Sun Sentinel reported before the spiritual leader could begin his Friday 6 a.m. worship service, he was arrested by federal agents and city police.

Officials report Khan was part of a larger conspiracy linked to the Pakistani terrorist group. According to the indictment against Kahn, "it was the purpose and object of the conspiracy to advance the jihad of the Pakistani Taliban against the Pakistani government and its perceived allies, including the United States, in order to displace the lawful government of Pakistan and to establish Sharia."

Kahn's mosque was stunned at the arrest of their iman. However, the most stunning aspect of the charge against Khan was the description of their spiritual leader.

Worshipper Navin Singh, 34 stated "He's not a bad person at all, he's very good, very respectful. He's into his religion and sports and that's it." Such shocking words to describe a man who covertly sent funds to the terrorist Taliban organization.

The Taliban are known to not only have killed Pakistani supporters of their government but also conspired to kill American troops sent to Pakistan to overthrow the Taliban. Consequently, Mr. Nice Guy was sending funds to Pakistan that were used to kill members of the U.S. military. "He's not a bad person at all." In my book Khan is a murderous Islamic monster; not a nice guy who is just into his religion and sports.

Another congregant described Khan as a "typical 76-year-old grandfather just preaching and teaching good values, just 'do's and don'ts' and we did not have any inclination that he had any kind of political motivations."

How do you describe a person who has been accused of supporting terrorism as a "typical grandfather" just preaching good morals? Have these people lost their minds, knowing their leader may be responsible for funding the deaths of hundreds or thousands of Muslims and Americans? Is Islam that blinding that its adherents can no longer recognize evil?

What blind devotion to a supporter of terrorism. The members of the Masjid Jamaat Al-Mumineen mosque should be hanging their heads in shame.

Thank God the Council on American-Islamic Relations suspended Izhar Khan as leader of the mosque. CAIR announced "The Muslim community rejects and condemns terrorism . . . and any support of terrorism."

The odd part of the Sun Sentinel article, written by Linda Trischitta and Paula McMahon, is that the two journalists devoted three columns quoting congregants who had nothing but positive words to say about their arrested leader. "He's a man of spirituality and humble, peace loving." "Whenever I came here [the mosque], he prayed and was peaceful." The article was slanted in the direction of making Khan out to be an everyday Joe-Iman.

Kahn was not a nice guy at all. In a private conversation included in the indictment against him, the iman was described, "[Hafiz] Kahn, upon hearing that mujahedeen in Afghanistan had killed seven American soldiers, declared his wish that God bring death to 50,000 more."

Should We Be Celebrating the Death of Osama bin Laden?

2011-05-04T17:35:00.000-07:00

Shouts of "USA! USA! USA!" rang out in the streets of midtown Manhattan and in front of the White House at the news Sunday night of the demise of top Al-Qaeda terrorist Osama bin Laden. The celebrations of the killing of the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack on the U.S.A. were patriotic and victorious.

However, for the past two days radio talk shows were flooded with callers who questioned whether or not Americans should celebrate the death of bin Laden. Several people felt the celebrants were cheering in the streets as though their favorite sports team had won a World Series or Super Bowl championship.

I reject this thoughtless comparison and question the wisdom of those who dare compare the rejoicing of over a city's baseball team to the sense of justice felt over the shooting of an enemy of America who killed thousands of our people. Unlike several sports street celebrations, there was no rioting, destruction of property, looting or attacks on the police by those who enjoyed America's victory over Al-Qaeda's evil leader.

Many callers felt those who rejoiced over the Al-Qaeda leader's death were no different than our enemies who danced in the streets when New York's Twin Towers fell on 9/11. In fact, the opinion voiced by many stated we should never celebrate the death of anyone. Rather, the demise of a person is always a time of sadness. All deaths are equal.

I find nothing distasteful at the sight of Americans rejoicing over the news of Osama bin Laden's death. Yet I find a lot to take offense at by callers who felt Americans should not rejoice over the death of a noted enemy of America.

First, the celebration over the death of Osama bin Laden marked the triumph of good over evil. Osama bin Laden plotted with his Al-Qaeda goons to kill as many American citizens as possible, including Muslims. In several videos bin Laden gladly took responsibility for masterminding the 9/11 massacre. For the families who lost loved ones in the toppling of the Twin Towers, the United Airlines Flight 93 disaster and the attack on the Pentagon, they were given a sense of righteous revenge knowing bin Laden faced justice.

Second, the celebration of the death of Osama bin Laden is a normal reaction to the downfall of a wicked leader. Though I was not alive when the news came across the wires that Adolph Hitler was dead, I can imagine the celebration by "America's greatest generation" over the death of this maniacal dictator.

I rejoiced when Saddam Hussein, the murderer of hundreds of thousands of his own Iraqi people, was hung for his heinous crimes. In the Book of Esther chapter 9:16-18 describes how the people of Israel created the Feast of Esther or Purim to celebrate the death of Haman, a Persian official who plotted the destruction of the Jewish people in Persia. In addition to Haman's death, the Jewish people also killed 75,000 inhabitants of Persia who were seeking to destroy the Jewish population. Esther 9:19 describes how the Jewish people set aside the fourteen day of the month of Adar as a "day for gladness and feasting."

Third, the celebration over the death of Osama bin Laden demonstrates that all deaths are not the same. When a loved one dies, we are saddened by their passing. However, when Osama bin Laden was shot in the face and in the chest, I was not saddened for his wives nor the bin Laden family. I saw his death as just dessert for a man who dedicated himself to terrorist activities and devoted his talents to the destruction of others. Proverbs 11:10 instructs us that "When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, and when the wicked perish there are shouts of gladness."

If a person struggles over the ability to feel of sense of justice when an evil man is executed, that individual has lost their moral compass.

I remember as a young child watching the hanging of Nazi killer Adolph Eichmann, and how proud I was of the Israelis for tracking down this monster, putting him on trial and then executing him for the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Jewish people. As a young child I had a sense of justice and have refused to allow our morally softening culture from taking that quality from me.

I'm sad to say that many of the callers protesting the celebration of the death of bin Laden over the radio were men. I would call them men who have lost their moral spine - men who most likely would not serve in the military due to their refusal to see the necessity of war to protect and preserve the freedom of our country.

I often wonder if these same men would've refused to fight Hitler's Nazi Germany were they alive during World War II. No wonder the Marines' slogan say, "We're looking for a few good men."

Journalist Lara Logan Blows Whistle on Sexual Assault by Cairo Muslim Crowd

2011-05-02T17:04:00.000-07:00

We can no longer remain silent about the abuse of women by Islamic men in the Middle East. Under Islamic law right now women are oppressed, denied human rights, treated as property, false accused of crimes and sexually abused.

After a period of silence female journal Lara Logan shared her horror story on "60 Minutes" Sunday night. While Islamic men rejoiced in Cairo's Tahrir Square at falling of Hosni Mubarak's Egyptian despotic regime, a mob surrounded the journalist and raped her with their hands and literally tore her body apart.

Logan is using her story to bring awareness to the sexual mistreatment of female journalists in the Middle East. Logan must also realize the mistreatment of females by extremist Islamic men is not solely directed at female journalists but women in general. Let us not forget how women protesting the facade of Iran's President Ahmadinejad "election" to office were beaten in the streets of Tehran by the leader's forces.

In Cyrus Nowrasteh's film The Stoning of Soraya M the film exposes the account of the abuse of one woman in Iran who was falsely accused of a crime leading to capital punishment by stoning to death.

It's too bad that most U.S. women's rights groups are so focused on abortion and equal rights in the work place that they are virtually silent at the mistreatment of women around the world, especially in extremist Islamic countries.

Even when Muslim's scholars are quizzed about the Koran's support of husbands beating their wives, the answers are often confusing and circuitous.

To keep readers aware of the mistreatment of women in the Middle East, here is a reproduction of Lara Logan's harrowing experience captured by Melissa Maerz in a Los Angeles Times article.

Breaking a months-long silence, CBS war correspondent Lara Logan talked to "60 Minutes" on Sunday night about what really happened to her in Cairo's Tahrir Square. On the night of Feb. 11, as the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak was falling, Logan joined the more than 100,000 people celebrating in the square, where she says a mob turned on her and sexually assaulted her.

"Suddenly, before I even know what's happening, I feel hands grabbing my breasts, grabbing my crotch, grabbing me from behind," she told Scott Pelley of "60 Minutes."

Things quickly spiraled out of control. "I think my shirt, my sweater was torn off completely," she said. "My shirt was around my neck. I felt the moment that my bra tore. ... And I felt them tear out, they literally just tore my pants to shreds. ... I didn't even know that they were beating me with flagpoles and sticks and things, because I couldn't even feel that. Because I think of the sexual assault, was all I could feel, was their hands raping me over and over and over again. ... They were tearing my body in every direction at this point, tearing my muscles. And they were trying to tear off chunks of my scalp, they had my head in different directions."

Logan said she was fighting for 25 minutes and didn't think she would live. "I was in no doubt in my mind that I was in the process of dying," she said. But thinking about her two children at home in Washington helped her focus on staying alive.

Eventually, she said, she was rescued by a woman dressed head to toe in black religious robes. "Just her eyes, I remember [I could see] just her eyes," Logan said. "She put her arms around me. And oh my God, I can't tell you what that moment was like for me. I wasn't safe yet, because the mob was still trying to get at me. But now it wasn't just about me anymore.

"It was about their women and that was what saved me, I think," she said. "The women kind of closed ranks around me."

Logan flew back to Washington, where she spent four days in a hospital as she was treated for cuts, bruises and internal tearing. She's been recovering at home with her husband and children. "I felt like I had been given a second chance that I didn't deserve," she said of her family. "I came so close to leaving them, to abandoning them."

Logan told "60 Minutes" that she was speaking out to help end the code of silence surrounding sex assaults on female journalists.

Franklin Graham Calls Hell-Denying Pastor Robert Bell a Heretic

2011-04-29T13:06:00.000-07:00

As a guest on Fox's Bill O'Reilly show last night, Samaritan's Purse CEO Franklin Graham was asked about Pastor Robert Bell's denial of hell in his book, Love Wins.

Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, wasted no words in describing Bell as a "false teacher and a heretic" because "the Bible is very clear that there is a hell." Playing the devil's advocate O'Reilly questioned whether the belief in eternal damnation in hell is cruel. The evangelist responded.

What's cruel is a person who rejects Almighty God and slams the door in God's face. The Bible says God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.

Graham made it clear that God has made every provision possible through the gift of His Son Jesus Christ so that no one need spend eternity separated from God.

Pastor Rob Bell of Mars Hill Bible Church, outside of Grand Rapids, Michigan, has become the center of controversy due to his denial of hell recently reported in Time magazine's cover article. Bell is a declared participant in a growing movement trying to pass themselves off as part of evangelical Christianity known as the "emerging church."

The emerging church phenomenon is a new generation churches, according to Christianity Today known for their improvisational approach to everything "from worship to leadership to preaching to prayer." Unfortunately, emerging church pastors are also taking an improvisational approach to the authority of the Bible.

I have to ask myself if a so called "christian" movement questions the reliability of the Word of God, then what is this movement emerging towards. Heresy? False doctrine? A watered-down version of the New Testament?

In an CT interview with Pastor Bell, he told the evangelical magazine that he started questioning his own assumptions about the Bible, "discovering the Bible as a human product, rather than a product of divine utterance."

Bell's wife Kristen confessed in the same interview that she grew up thinking "that we figured out the Bible that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea of what most of it means." With statements like these from the Bells, perhaps Mars Hill Bible Church should rename itself to "Mars Hill Bibleless Church."

It also seems any pastor who associates himself with the views of Pastor Bell may lose his job. At the end of March, North Carolina Methodist minister Chad Holtz was fired from his pastoral position after expressing his doubts over the existence of hell. Holtz was outed for his beliefs after posting on his Facebook page support for Pastor Bell's book Love Wins.

As a former pastor I rejoice that evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham, pastor and author John Piper and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president R. Albert Mohler, Jr. are stepping forward in condemning the false teachings that are expressed by the leaders of the emerging church movement, especially Pastor Bell.

In a time when sound doctrine is essential to communicate the good news of Jesus the Messiah to a lost world, we cannot be improvising the eternal truths of the Word of God as seen in this current movement.

The challenge to the growing rank of emergent churches is to start emerging back to holding fast to timeless teachings of Jesus, and stop worrying how to make Jesus more relevant to today's aimless culture. Jesus Himself told His contemporaries that "heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).

Pastor Rob Bell: Imagine There's No Hell

2011-04-28T16:36:00.000-07:00

In 1975 John Lennon wrote the song Imagine in which he visualized a world where hell does not exist:

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Now Pastor Robert Bell of Michgan's Mars Hill Bible Church has sketched out the theology to accompany Lennon's classic tune.

On the cover of the April 14th issue of Time magazine, the question sparked by Rob Bell's book new best seller, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, is asked, "What If Hell Does Not Exist?"

The Time article offers a meandering outline of Bell's theology regarding the issue of hell's existence. The news magazine makes it crystal clear that the traditional evangelical message is that salvation is found only in the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Bluntly stated, Time author Jon Meacham acknowledges the classic Christian viewpoint, "In the Evangelical ethos, one either accepts this and goes to heaven or refuses and goes to hell."

In contrast the Michigan pastor suggests that the redeeming work of Jesus Christ "may be universal." In other words, every person who has ever lived has a place in heaven. Rather than parlay with Bell's non-evangelical theology on every jot and title, I want to address a few disconcerting issues in his belief system:

*Pastor Bell's lack of certainty in his denial of the existence of hell is a red flag. In contrast to the New Testament authors who speak with confidence about salvation through Christ alone, Bell speaks of his "salvation for everybody" with a great deal of uncertainty. He feels the eternal destiny of those who don't accept Christ is a "mystery" and that his view is a "suggestion".

Of what advantage is Bell's beliefs if they are merely uncertainties and suggestions of mystery? Pastor Bell is concocting a stew of controversy in the church over issues he is not really sure of himself. Consequently, his book helps no one but is a tragic piece of Christian literature whose sole purpose is to raise doubt regarding the veracity of the Bible.

Perhaps Bell should have written a science fiction novel about a make-believe Christian utopia rather than a book about a make-believe theology!

*If Bell's view of hell is true, then, as Meacham points out, "Christianity becomes [little] more of an ethical habit of mind than a faith based on divine revelation."

If all Christianity has contributed is just one more religiously based moral code, then Christ died needlessly. Without the substitutionary death of Jesus, the Apostle's have given us a set of rules to follow in order to live a better life. Eternal salvation through Jesus becomes a non-issue in Pastor Bell's uncertain theology.

Even if Jesus died for everyone resulting in the fact everyone is going to heaven, where is the motivation for sharing the gospel message? There is no need for the church to share the message of Christ and there is no need for the cross which is the essence of the gospel message.

*Finally, if there is no hell as John Lennon merely imagined, then there lacks a sense of justice in the universe. In the afterlife both the victimizer and the victim are destined to the same end. Even if one believes the afterlife is a state of sleep or annihilation, the adherent to this view has to deal with the fact life ends without a sense of divine justice. Hitler and Mother Teresa share the same fate.

An afterlife without divine justice means that murderers like Jeffrey Dahmer, Joseph Stalin and Pol Put will never face judgment for their sins. Unless they confessed their sins and sought forgiveness from Christ for their heinous crimes, they will be enjoying eternal bliss with their victims.

Though I am not a betting man, I highly doubt if anyone of these brutal killers ever repented of their sins and begged Jesus for forgiveness. I don't know about you, but a world that does not include divine justice is a sad, meaningless world.

The worse aspect of Bell's Love Wins is his question, "What does it mean to be a Christian?" Bell's book leads us to the conclusion that a follower of Christ is non-judgmental, lacks a sense of conviction about the gospel message of eternal life through Christ and that other faiths are no different than the New Testament message of salvation through Jesus. If am a Buddhist, then why do I need to accept Jesus as my Savior if He has already redeemed my soul and promises me heaven?

Robert Bell has a lot of answering to do for his "denial of hell" which has placed him outside the fold of the evangelical faith.