Threats of loss towards those who want to leave: seduction for all others

Some might say that since I’m not leaving the PCUSA, I don’t have a dog in this fight— but I do, I’m tied forever to the Hound of Heaven.[1] And He keeps putting me in the strangest places. But I do not believe he will be putting me back in a church (Fremont) if its only members turn out to be those who care little for biblical Christology, the authority of Scripture and the confessions of the church. I will not be a part of those who offer no help to those caught in sinful sexual lifestyles but instead want to ordain them. That would not be standing with Jesus; it would not be caring for hurting sheep.

But there are some at Fremont Presbyterian Church who obviously think I would come back if they were the ones who got to keep the church property. Four Sundays ago coming home from a different Presbyterian church, we stopped for breakfast at a restaurant. It was new to us since it was in a different neighborhood. As we left, one of the ladies from Fremont, who had voted not to leave the PCUSA, was sitting with her husband waiting to be seated. I went over to say hello and was surprised by our conversation.

When I told her we were visiting different churches to find a home when Fremont leaves, she said that we should stay at Fremont because the Presbytery was going to give the church to those who voted not to leave the PCUSA. When I asked her how she knew this (The negotiating teams had not met yet) she told me that the Executive Presbyter had told her.

When I returned home I sent an e-mail off to the Executive Presbyter asking if this was true. I asked him if he had told the lady that those who voted "No" would be given the property. He replied, "I have said that the property is an issue for the negotiating teams and the Presbytery to determine. The Presbytery could determine that the faithful remnant can maintain a healthy mission with the property. Could, not would, is the key word. This is the negotiation teams ' responsibility, and I am simply interpreting polity."

This is all to say that Saturday night, returning home from out of town, there was a letter in our mail box from the Presbytery of Sacramento. It was divided; the first part was from all who signed the letter, 22 people altogether.

The next was from the Presbytery’s negotiation team giving “facts” about how dire the voting had been [it was actually 427 to leave and 164 to stay] including the fact that they had been “contacted by a group of Fremonters who wish to remain in the PCUSA. As allowed for by our Constitution (Section G-4.0207 of the Book of Order), They have requested that we consider dismissing those who want to go to the EPC, but leaving the property in the PCUSA.”

Next are words from the Faithful Fremont Fellowship. (That is what a small group of those who voted ‘No’ are calling themselves.) They are attempting to pull in more people so they can convince the Presbytery that they would make “up a strong and viable PCUSA church.” They suggest that many members who voted to leave will change their mind, that many who did not vote will stay.

Their invitation, like the lady in the restaurant, whose name, is also on the letter, was “come and join us.” They think that I and many other members will join them.

And finally there was the part from the Executive Presbyter, which included:

I have been in the position of transitional Presbyter since May 2011. One of my roles is to be a pastor to the Presbytery. In that role, I have talked with the Fremont pastors and offered my support. I also made myself available to any members of Fremont who may need pastoral or spiritual support in this time of transition.

The biggest problem with all of this is that it all came in the same letter with the Presbytery's letterhead. And as a friend in another Presbytery wrote, “the horrific part is that they are all in cahoots: discernment team, Presbyter, and the FFF?”

This is my suggestion for members of Fremont:

If you don’t feel led to leave the PCUSA at this time, find another PCUSA Church, but for the sake of Christ do not aid the people who joined up with the Presbytery to make sure they get to keep church property. Instead listen to my story:

At least twenty years ago my husband Brad and I found Fremont. We walked in on a lovely Sunday Jazz morning; the music was great and best of all Darrell Johnson was preaching. He was preaching the pure word of God and we loved it. And then we went to a Sunday school class where the lady, a professor, was supposedly teaching about various Churches and Church history. She taught that doctrine, the Trinity and the deity of Christ were not important.

Another teacher, a former pastor and missionary, taught on the Nicene Creed without once mentioning Arianism or the deity of Christ. Our pastor, Darrell Johnson, was constantly harassed by members—they would send him letters saying he was preaching about Jesus too much.

Even later, after we joined, as I began teaching on new religions, in a class on the occultic Anthroposophical Society of Rudolf Steiner a lady stood up and spoke nearly ten minutes defending Steiner’s religion and schools. Later, privately, I asked her, "Didn’t she want the Steiner people to know the true Christ?" She stated that what they believed was truth for them. Her name is also on the letter.

So why am I writing this story?

Darrell Johnson, when he took a new position, left behind a growing group of reformed Christians who held to biblical Christology and the authority of God’s word. Many people who grew up in Fremont, who had not really experienced a relationship with Jesus Christ began loving Jesus and owning him as Lord. Many others, who were orthodox, found at Fremont, a wonderful place to grow in Christ. And many more, new to the church, found Jesus Christ.

If the people on the letter’s list are given the church property, Fremont will probably return to its yesteryears. Its theology will revert to a diversity of theologies that are tolerant of all except those who uphold Jesus as the only unique Savior, the one who is both fully human and fully God. And as I stated above, its "members will turn out to be those who care little for biblical Christology, the authority of Scripture and the confessions of the church." They will certainly care little for biblical sexual morality.

There is a famous poem by Dylan Thomas, “Do not go gentle into that good night.” It was written to his father as his father lay dying. It was not a Christian poem. The line “Rage, Rage against the dying of the light,” is repeated three times in the poem. But the Christian knows true light that will never die, so do not rage but do not be unwise either. Do not agree to the seduction. Do not put yourself in that place where you help to snuff out the light of a vibrant church.

[1] See The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson  http://www.houndsofheaven.com/thepoem.htm

Just a song-the second Sunday of Advent

A song for the second Sunday of Advent:

A meeting of sorts

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

So what did the people do that Micah is speaking to. They used unjust weights so as to cheat the poor. They were violent and they lied. But God describes their sin in large letters when he states through the prophet Micah that, “The statues of Omn and all the works of the house of Ahab are observed and in all their devices you walk.” (Micah 6:16)

I have been trying to think how to write it …
Impossible, that verse they are always quoting
Micah 6:8-his word, but is it really heard.

Omn and Ahab brought false fertility gods into the land of Israel. But the greatest sin of all was cheating someone out of their property. As the writers of the Tyndale commentary puts it, “Omri and Ahab, who lived more than a century before Micah, have become legendary and serve as a paradigm of apostasy (cf. 1 Ki. 16:30-33), turpitude, cupidity and injustice (cf. 1 Ki. 21). Ahab’s swindling and exhorting of property from others is in view here.”

He came last. The meeting was over. The pastor’s complaint and sorrow was of the insults uttered around him—I suppose toward those who were speaking. They even swore and said those churches had screwed them.
He stands at the door knocking—we should let him in.

In the Old Testament three sins are always the cause of Israel’s judgment; they seem to circle around each other.

Idolatry—the worship of other gods which includes the self
Sexual sin—perverseness that allows the self to flaunt the word of God
Greed—hoarding and spending what belongs to someone else

Carefully, some would say carelessly, I choose my words, winter is ahead, few will walk together in the cold wind, only Christ will give us warmth. Only in Him will love of his people grow.

God’s gifts are many but his wrath is also in the midst of a people’s persistent sin. It is he who purifies the church. Barth reminded the church of his day, the German Church, that God could take their candle away just as he took away the candle of the North African Church in Augustine’s day.

Critiquing the theologies and connections of some pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel leaders: a series # 3

Stephen Sizer: A warrior against Christian Zionism

This is my third and final posting on Stephen Sizer: A warrior against Christian Zionism. Sizer is the first person I have looked at in my series: Critiquing the theologies and connections of some pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel leaders: a series. I have been looking at his “Seven Biblical Answers to Popular Zionist Assumptions,” critiquing both the assumptions and his analysis of them. In this posting I will look at the last two assumptions and then explain how Sizer’s analysis is shaped and colored by his links to anti-Semitic individuals.

The 6th Christian Zionist assumption is:

6. Believers will soon be ‘raptured’ to heaven before the ‘end-time’ battle of Armageddon

Skipping Sizer’s comments for just a moment, I want to look at everything that is being said in that sentence.

1. Something having to do with the Lord’s coming is going to happen very soon.
2. The saints will be “raptured” away before the sinners are judged.
3. There will be an end time battle called the battle of Armageddon

I agree with Sizer “The Bible is emphatic: the return of Jesus will be personal, sudden, public, visible and glorious,” but there is so much more to be said. He uses Matthew 24-30-31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 to explain his beliefs about the second coming of Christ. He uses Matthew 24:40-41 and Luke 17:34-35 as well as Matthew 13 to critique the Christian Zionist assumption. But after his critique Sizer does an interesting thing. Sizer quotes Revelation 22:1-2:

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Before the quote he writes, “…however we understand the vivid apocalyptic language of Daniel, Matthew and Revelation, we must hold onto the clear vision of the future of Paradise restored and the nations reconciled in Christ.” and afterwards he writes, “Our mandate is to be peacemakers not widow makers (Matthew 5:3-10). We are ‘God’s co-workers’ entrusted as ambassadors with a ministry of reconciliation not speculation (2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2).

So actually Sizer’s biggest complaint it seems to me is with the “Left Behind” series of books and their view of an end time final battle which is very human centered. But what the Christian really needs is a biblical understanding that all of Scripture including Daniel, Matthew and Revelation is God’s revelation of his purposes and plans. And when one looks at all three of the Bible books Sizer mentions one sees circles of pictures of what God is doing in relation to the nations, the unrepentant and most of all the Church. And the Jews are there too, always as God’s sign to the nations.

There is human evil (an unrelenting occurrence in history), the tribulation of the saints, (an unrelenting occurrence in history) the historical triumphs and horrible devastations aimed at Judah, (an unrelenting occurrence in history), the redemptive activity of God (an unrelenting occurrence in history) and the judgment of God (an unrelenting occurrence in history.) But there may be a final Cataclysm occurrence of all toward the end of human history as we know it- but always it is God’s victory in Jesus Christ which he has already secured.

More importantly, we cannot forget the judgment of God. No, we are not called to be widow makers but we cannot forget or lightly pass over, in the light of God’s great and costly redemption in Christ, the judgment of God. And we must, as all Christians have down the ages, look for the soon return of Christ. After all in light of eternity Christ’s second coming is always near at hand.

The last Christian Zionist’s assumption is:

7. God has a separate plan for the Jewish people apart from the Church

This is the crucial part of Sizer’s theology. And it is only fair to say that many Reformed pastors and theologians have disagreed with Christian Zionists just at this point. For some, including Sizer, the Jews, out side of Christ, simply disappear and are no longer important to God as a separate people. Sizer’s views, however, merge with a troubling anti-Semitism. While he believes God no longer has anything to do with the Jews, Sizer spends a great deal of time dealing with the Jews including linking his ministry to many who malign, defame, and wish for the destruction of the Jews.

But there are other Reformed theologians who disagree with Sizer’s position. The important thing to note here is that almost no Evangelical/Reformed theologian is stating that the Jewish people do not need Jesus. Instead they are insisting that God does not and will not, in human history, let go of the people he has called, made promises too, given the law to and blessed the world through  the birth of his eternal Son.

Sizer, using Eph. 2:11-16, writes that “we see that God has only ever had one inclusive people, identified on the basis of faith not race.” Yet, while it is true that those people in a relationship with God are always defined by faith in both the New and Old Testament, there is in the Hebrew Bible a people defined by God’s choosing and they are also defined by ethnicity, they are descendents of Abraham. Yes, other peoples were included among the ancient Israelites, but they became a part of the Jewish ethnicity—they did not continue to exist as a separate people. And so Jesus, who certainly considered himself a Jew, had several ancestors who were of another nation.

It isn’t that the nation of Israel is better than any other people; it is rather that God chose them and he chose them for a purpose. In the Old Testament the chosen are defined by both faith and ethnicity. In the New Testament God’s people are defined by faith and it is a faith that pulls in all of the faithful of the Old Testament. But it does not cancel out God’s dealings with the Jews. I have already quoted Romans 11:28-29.

From the stand point of the Gospel they [the Jews] are enemies for your sake, but from the stand point of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.

And as F.F. Bruce will insist, for Paul, the Jews are forever in the heart of God, he sees them embracing Christ as a whole people-perhaps right before the coming of Jesus Christ. Bruce writes:

When the full tale of believing Gentiles was made up – then all Israel, not only a faithful remnant but the nation as a whole, would see the salvation of God. If their temporary stumbling was prophetically foretold, so was their ultimate and permanent restoration. The new covenant will not be complete until it embraces the people of the old covenant. Temporarily alienated for the advantage of the Gentiles, they are eternally the object of God’s electing love because his promises, once made to the patriarchs, can never be revoked.

If one looks carefully at this thought there is the understanding that the Jewish people are ever in the mind of God as he waits for their embrace of the Messiah. If this is so those who put them aside in the name of the Gospel, teaching that the Jews are no longer nor were ever the chosen may wander off onto a few dark corners. And this is often true in the practical out workings of those who align themselves with only one side of the Middle East conflicts. Sizer’s Christianity is undoubtedly evangelical but he has put some of his luggage into the tents of both right wing and left wing anti-Semites.

Many years ago I became acquainted with a man who was what is called a historical revisionist. That is someone who denies the Holocaust, the death of 6, 000,000 Jews in the concentration camps of the Nazis. He had spoken on a Christian radio station and afterwards we had a very long conversation via the telephone. His name is Gordon Ginn and you can find books by him at the book store of We Hold These Truths and Strait Gate Ministries headed by Charles E. Carlson an anti-Semite who pickets Churches aligned with Christian Zionists. Stephen Sizer quoted Carlson as through he was just an ordinary Evangelical whose views are important.

When I saw the article, “Is Zionism losing ground among Evangelicals,” I was shocked to find Carlson’s quote:

The poll results state that 73% of those polled think "God's covenant with the Jewish people" continues today, and only 22% say it does not. It should be noted here that this is a Judeo-Christian give-away, since it is based on a false premise. The Pew Forum and all Evangelicals need to understand that there never was an Old Testament covenant with "the Jewish people." Most Evangelicals, radical or moderate, fail to properly distinguish the ancient tribe of Israelites from the Jews of today, and in particular, the Jewish inhabitants of the modern secular Jewish state of Israel. This error is the result of scriptural distortion that is encouraged by the State of Israel and its lobbies in the USA, and by the Israel-friendly press.

I wrote to Sizer explaining who Carlson was. He never replied. He undoubtedly already knew who Carlson was; it is I who did not know who Sizer was. And neither do many evangelicals who endorse his books and speak at the same conferences he speaks at such as Christ at the Checkpoint.

Sizer has several times been interviewed on Press TV the official news of Iran whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also denies the Holocaust. On Iran’s Press TV, broadcast from London, Sizer is interviewed by Alan Hart. Hart is another anti-Semite who writes for Veterans Today a vile anti-Semitic site who’s Editor, Gordon Duff, believes that Israel was involved in 9-11. He has also been interviewed by Viva Palestina Malaysia. In one interview Sizer attempts to explain Zionism:

We have to go back to the 19th century and recognize that Britain, France and Germany were colonizing much of the world in our various empires and we were placing our countrymen into various parts of the world and creating colonies—Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa, just some of the colonies we created in Africa and we need to see Israel along these lines, an ethnically pure European people who would work with the British in expanding our empire—we need their support to feed the Ottomans. And therefore we promised them a homeland in our empire and so the idea of Zionism goes back to empire building, colonialism and the concept of ethnically pure races so it’s a form of racism.

Sizer knows nothing about the true beginnings of Zionism. Zionism begins with the Jews of Europe and their needs. And they were Jews, not an ethically pure European people. Sadly, Sizer while upholding some evangelical truths drifts away from the kind of connections that envelop the practical out-workings of Christian faith.

I began this series with Sizer as a means of sorting out a stronger stance for Reformed Christians in the stand against anti-Semitism as it grows in mainline denominations and now in evangelical churches. Sizer is conservative in many areas of his faith. As I move on to other pastors and theologians I will look at the more liberal positions including Palestinian liberation theology. Although it is important to note that the right and the left are beginning to join forces. I will post more on this series next week.

Critiquing the theologies and connections of some pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel leaders: a series # 2

Stephen Sizer: A warrior against Christian Zionism

This is a continuation of my analysis of Stephen Sizer’s paper, “Seven Biblical Answers to Popular Zionist’s Assumptions." Sizer whose specialty is critiquing Christian Zionism is a popular speaker at pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel conferences such as Christ at the Checkpoint. He is the first person whose theology I am analyzing with my series Critiquing the theologies and connections of some pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel leaders: a series # 1. With this posting I will look at the next three Christian Zionist’s assumptions that Sizer lists and critiques. This is my response to both the assumptions and Sizer’s critique. Continuing from the last posting the third assumption is:

3. The Promised Land was given by God to the Jewish people as an everlasting inheritance.

Sizer uses Ezekiel 33:24-26, 28-29, 47:21-23 and Hebrews 11:9-10, 39-40 to refute the assumption. Sizer’s first thought on this is “Contrary to popular assumption, the Scriptures repeatedly insist that the land belongs to God and that residence is always conditional.” He is not wrong, that is scriptural, Ezekiel 33:24-26. But his thoughts are too wooden. It is God’s land, but it is also, because it has been given, land that belongs to the ancient Israelites. Truth told, all that any of us own belongs to God, and when we misuse it God may meet us in judgment. So it isn’t a case of either or, but of both.

Like the above there are all kinds of category problems in Sizer’s thinking. The ancient land of Israel was God’s but he did give it as an inheritance to the Israelites. Yes it did depend on a covenant and the obedience of the people, but it was given to Israel not to another ethnic group. Yes, God told the Israelites “to allot it [the land] as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners residing among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.” But that was nonetheless based on God’s gift of land to the ancient Israelites and not to another people. The verse does not prove that God didn’t give them the land.

Sizer also uses the New Testament book of Hebrews to prove that the ultimate goal of Abraham was not the land but a spiritual relationship with God. He writes, “Indeed, the writer to Hebrews explains that the land was never their ultimate desire or inheritance any way but a temporary residence until the coming of Jesus Christ.” This is true, the land was not their ultimate desire, but the text states that they lived in tents “in the promised land.” Abraham longed for the City without foundations but he nevertheless lived in the land promised to his descendents. This too is not an either or, it is both. The Promised Land does not necessarily end with the first coming of Jesus Christ, although he is the fulfillment of the promises.

In fact, we as Christians have many promises and gifts now, but it is the Lord himself that we desire. It is our eternal relationship with him that we value and we give up all, in order to gain him. But still that does not cancel out his promises or gifts, or as C.S. Lewis called them “many pleasant inns.”

The truth of the matter is that in later Jewish tradition “the celestial Jerusalem was shown in a vision to Abraham at the scene of Gn 15 9-21 (Apoc. Bar. 4 4).” [1] Both Judaism and Christianity claim earthly promises and a final new heaven and new earth. Sizer’s category mistakes are abundant.

Having shown where Sizer fails, I will now suggest that God has graciously placed the Jewish people back in their ancient homeland today. I do not think as Christians we can tie any prophecy to the event except to say God is gracious to his people, the Jews. Nor, can we predict the future for the modern State of Israel. But what we must do as Christians towards the Jews, including the State of Israel, is love, treat them fairly, have humility in the face of our past wrongs and stand against any anti-Semitism which includes post-modern anti-Zionism. This includes telling the truth about the history of the State of Israel including the sins of both sides.

The 4th Christian Zionist assumption is:

4. Jerusalem is the exclusive and undivided, eternal Capital of the Jewish people.

First we should look at this from the Jewish point of view. The Jewish State of Israel undoubtedly wants Jerusalem as its capital. That is understandable. Whether it is possible, and how it can be fairly accomplished is another question. On one side there are issues of Israel’s defense, and on the other fairness to Islamic and Christian citizens. These are complex issues that must eventually be worked out but they are not, from a Reformed position, worked out in Scripture.

The Western Christian has no right, on biblical grounds, to insist on Jerusalem as an undivided Capital of the Jewish people. The Western Christian has no right, on biblical grounds, to insist that Jerusalem should not be an undivided Jewish Capital. We belong to a heavenly Jerusalem and a heavenly King who will return. The physical city of Jerusalem is not ours, it does not figure into the promises that God has given us.

But Sizer while holding the traditional Christian view that we belong to a heavenly Jerusalem, insists on saying what a Jewish State should do about its ancient Holy City. He simply cannot have it both ways. Sizer quotes Psalm 87. If he sees in the Psalm a picture of the Church, as I do, then he cannot lay that picture over the ancient city of Jerusalem. He can only make God’s love for the ancient city a picture of the Father’s love for those who reside in Jesus. Today the real issues are about fairness and safety, security and even history.

The fifth assumption is:

5. The Jewish Temple must be rebuilt before Jesus returns.

To be fair, I need to point out that in most cases this is not a true statement of what Christian Zionists believe. Victor Styrsky is a friend of mine. He is a Christian Zionist who works with and for John Hagee. While we disagree on a lot, what he has written in his book, Honest to God: Christian Zionists Confront 10 Questions Jews Need Answered, shows that that 5th assumption is wrong. Styrsky writes:

Evangelicals [insert Christian Zionists here] have no eschatological teaching (End of Days theology) that requires all Jews to be back in the land of Israel for a Messianic visitation. Neither do evangelical Christians believe that there is anything we can do to hasten the return (or first visit, as my Jewish friends believe) of Messiah.

Evangelical Christian theology concerning the coming of Messiah is fairly unified on the following points:

1. A date for the event has already been secured.
2. Only God the Father knows the time.
3. The coming Messiah is imminent.

The assumption Sizer has listed is not correct. But I need to add something more which my friend, Styrsky, may or may not agree with. Biblically, for the Christian, a Temple does not to be built at all. Jesus Christ is the temple and the sacrifice as well as the high Priest. And he is perfect in all of those ways. The Jews may build a Temple but it does not affect what God has planned. The temple and the sacrifices were a shadow of what God was doing. They were a promise of the coming Messiah, his life, death and resurrection. The Jews, in faithfulness looked toward the promises. We look back to their fulfillment in Christ.

So here is a good thing about Christian Zionists. They are not doing what they are doing to fulfill prophecy but because they love the Jews. Even when I disagree with their theology, I respect their motives. Sizer quotes 1 Peter 2:5-7, a beautiful verse “you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” But I must say that part of that offering of spiritual sacrifices to God means truthfulness and humility.

In my next posting I will look at the last two Christian Zionists assumptions, Sizer’s critique of them and his connections to the wider world of anti-Semitism.

[1] Found in The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the old and New Testaments: A Critical and exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, James Moffatt, later edition, (Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark 1963) 170.

Critiquing the theologies and connections of some pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel leaders: a series # 1

I am beginning a series that will  focus on those Christian writers and speakers who are currently involved in pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel organizations, conferences, films and in many cases have written books. I am writing this series for several reasons. It is now clear that several well known Reformed and Evangelical pastors and leaders have begun circulating within these conferences as speakers themselves. 

Undoubtedly some neither understand the theological implications nor do they grasp some of the more anti-Semitic connections that they are involved in. Besides the first concern is the sorrow of watching this movement grow within my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). My focus will be on the theological views of various leaders within the movement but at the end of each analysis of an author I will, if necessary, point out their connections to the wider world of anti-Semitism.

I am writing this, not as a Christian Zionist, but as Reformed and Evangelical. I invite my friends who are Christian Zionist to comment and correct me if I misunderstand their biblical or even political positions. I also invite my Jewish friends to speak up if I misunderstand a Jewish position. Actually I invite all to comment as long as there are no insults tossed about.

My first posting is on Vicar Stephen Sizer of Christ Church in the United Kingdom. It will take several postings to both look at his theology and his connections.

Stephen Sizer: A warrior against Christian Zionism

Stephen Sizer, an Anglican priest in the United Kingdom is a frequent speaker at pro-Palestine, anti-Israel and anti-Zionists conferences. He has written several books on Christian Zionism his latest being, Zion’s Christian Soldiers. Sizer has been accused, by several bloggers, of connections with anti-Semites and even Holocaust deniers. I in fact put an endnote on a posting that he had linked to Holocaust denier, Charles Carlson at Strait Gate ministries in one of his postings. While Sizer is not a Holocaust denier himself, it is important to critique his theology, as it relates to Israel, since he is adversely influenced by some anti-Semitic ideas and in turn influences a small cluster of evangelicals.

As I have pointed out Sizer’s theological thrust is toward critiquing Christian Zionism and he does so from an evangelical position finding it’s teaching heretical. I, on the other hand, coming from a Reformed and Evangelical position, disagree with much of Christian Zionism while also disagreeing with Sizer’s position on Israel and even more so his poor opinions of the Jews and the Old Testament. While he finds Christ in the Old Testament he pours scorn on the history of the Jews in this manner:

In the second Millennium BC, the place to live was called Canaan. The estate agents described it as “a land flowing with milk and honey”. After 400 years in Egypt and another 70 wandering around in the desert, God’s people were keen to muscle in on the Promised Land. They would literally kill for it. They promised God and Joshua, everything under the sun if they could just get their hands on it.

Because Sizer has posted an article “Seven Biblical Answers to Popular Zionist Assumptions,” which he states is taken from his latest book, Zion's Christian Soldiers. I will critique his article.

The biggest problem with Sizer’s article is not what he states but what he leaves out. The first Christian Zionist' assumption is:

1. God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel

Quoting, Genesis 12:2-3 & 22:17-18 with Eph. 2:8-9, Sizer makes three points against the assumption. The first is that God is only referring to Abraham not to those descendants who follow him. Secondly in the New Testament the promise is fulfilled in Jesus Christ and in those who receive him by faith, since it is not by works but by faith that we are saved.

Sizer also quotes Gal. 3:16, 28-29 to show that the word seed, as in the seed or descendant of Abraham, is singular pointing to Jesus Christ. In other words in Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham, all the nations will be blessed.

And Paul makes it clear with Gal. 3:16, 28-29, that Jesus fulfills the promises given to Abraham. But, consider, it is the Jews, the children of Abraham that bless the nations with Jesus the fulfillment of the promise. And Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at the well, “Salvation is from the Jews.” (John 4:22b) The problem with both the Christian Zionists and Sizer is that they both leave out part of the biblical picture. The Zionist seemingly divorce the completeness of the promise, which in reality covers the New Testament believers who see the promise fulfilled, and the Old Testament believers who look forward to the promise fulfilled.

But Sizer is far worse; he cuts the Old Testament off from the New. It is as though he takes the scissors and cuts away only that material that pertains to Jesus in prophecy, typology and analogy. What Sizer ignores is God's active blessing of the very people from which Jesus descended. He does not take their history seriously. In a sense, Sizer is removing the humanity of Jesus by maligning the history of his people.

There cannot be a fulfillment if there is not in reality a physical nation with an important history that descends from Abraham. That nation is important and is God’s work in history. There is a promise of land to Abraham, (see Genesis 15:18), which is maintained through his descendant's faith and obedience to God. Likewise there is a promise of blessing and cursing for the Jewish people. One sees this when God uses pagan nations to punish Israel and then punishes the pagan nation because of their misuse of Israel. These: the land and blessings must be considered the material blessings of God. My disagreement with Christian Zionists is that land and blessing have anything at all to do with the future promises of God. The ethical position the Christian must hold toward the Jewish people both in Israel and elsewhere is love, fairness, truthfulness and humility

On the other hand, those who belong to Jesus Christ have far greater promises than this particular promise to a single chosen ethnic people. And those promises of salvation, eternity and union with Jesus Christ extend to both Jew and Gentile, but always through Christ. But this brings up the next assumption. That is:

2. The Jewish People are God’s “chosen people”

For Old Testament references, Sizer uses Deuteronomy 23:7-8; Psalm 87:4-6; Isaiah 56:3-7. For the New Testament he uses Romans 2:28-29, Roman’s 9:6-8 and Col. 3:11-12. And once again Sizer lifts up some truth. He writes, “Both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures insist membership of God’s people is open to all races on the basis of grace through faith.” That is the gospel. But then he goes on to state, “When the Lord Jesus died on the cross he was the sole remnant of Israel.” Now here is where there is a real problem for Christians and it is simply a matter of confusion. Both Christians and Jews, who have received Christ as their Savior, are spiritual Israel. They have been grafted into the root of the faithful of the Hebrew Bible.

But there is still a physical Israel disconnected from Christianity but nonetheless not forgotten by God. Although Sizer may quote Romans 2:28-29, “A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God,” he has not proved that Israel has no more importance to God. With this verse Sizer has not proven that the Jews are not chosen.

This understanding of circumcision is found in the Old Testament. Except for the Philistines, all of the nations around Israel were circumcised, but they were not in covenant with Yahweh. Neither did they adore him inwardly. Paul is not saying something new; instead he is using the Hebrew Bible to insist that there is no need for the Gentiles to be circumcised.

F.F. Bruce, a Reformed theologian, in the Tyndale Commentary on Romans, points out that Paul, after stating the above “imagines someone breaking into his argument and saying, “will then, if it is being a Jew inwardly that counts, … is there any advantage in belonging to the Jewish nation, or in being physically circumcised?” And Bruce writes that we can be surprised at Paul’s answer.

The answer is, “much in every way.” And why is that? Paul writes, “Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” And Bruce in his comment states, “Of course it is an advantage to belong to the circumcised nation. Think of all the privileges granted by God to that nation – privileges in which other nations had no part.” Bruce in a note adds that further privileges are listed in Romans 9:4-5. That is, “…to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”

So are the Jews as an ethnic people chosen? Here again Paul, in Romans, gives an answer. He writes:

From the standpoint of the gospel they [the Jews] are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” (11:28-2)

Jesus, when speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well, counters her argument that the Samaritans worship on a mountain, with the truth that the Jews who worship in the Temple know who they worship and that salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22) But Jesus further reminds her that the time is coming and now is, when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Jesus does not divorce his people the Jews; instead he points his followers to himself the one rooted by his humanity in the Jewish nation.

In my next posting I will look at the next several assumptions, two, like Sizer, I fervently disagree with, however I with the same fervency disagree with his solution.

The goodness of the gospel

For Thanksgiving here is a truly beautiful piece of music. And not only is the music beautiful but the video is beautiful. Someone has taken the time to highlight various instrumentalist as they play.

Plus remember as you listen that this was background music to a movie that captured the goodness of the gospel as South American indigenousness  peoples came to Christ through their love of music. It was also a movie about the evil of those who wanted slaves rather then righteousness. The selfishness of humanity was willing to tear apart peoples, missions, even buildings to have their own way rather than God's way.

And yet, God's way, Jesus Christ, has gained the victory already, on the cross, out of the tomb, in the lives of his own, and at last in His final coming.