Occupy Wallstreet and anti-Semitism

At this time in our history-we need awareness, concern and prayers. A movement moving toward anti-Semitism?



I placed another video here but it was asking for calls to leaders and that isn't something I want to do on my blog. There are other videos of anti-Semitism and the Occupy Wallstreet Movement on YouTube.

Found at The PJ Tatler

This was posted on PJ Tatler by Zombie-who in a comment explained how some use the phrase Zionist Jew:

"The phrase “Zionist Jew” is a euphemism used by modern far-leftists and American Islamists to substitute for the less acceptable “dirty Jew.”

Technically, a “Zionist Jew” is a Jew who supports the existence of Israel, but the Jew-haters use that as an identifying factor to classify any pro-Israel Jews as the enemy, while the self-hating brainwashed far-left anti-Israel Jews have sufficiently de-Jew-ified themselves to be acceptable.

But as soon as you hear the phrase “Zionist Jew” coming out of someone’s mouth, you know they are attempting to euphemize their anti-Semitism. It’s the phrase used by radical Islamists in America and Europe, so they can claim they’re not really against all Jews, you see, just “Zionist” Jews. This also gives cowardly Jews a way out — if only you were to drop your support of Israel, then we won’t kill you in the next Holocaust!
The most hateful speakers I’ve ever heard all used the phrase “Zionist Jews.”

My thoughts on the IPMN Symposium: Bible, Land and our Theological Challenge: A Presbyterian Conversation

I watched part of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) symposium titled, Bible, Land, and our Theological Challenge: A Presbyterian Conversation. I heard Dr. Gary Burge, Professor of New Testament at Wheaton as well as all of the afternoon forum and question and answer time. I have several thoughts about Burges speech and also reflections on a question that Dr. Charles Wiley, of the Theology and Worship office, asked.

It seems that much of the symposium was a reaction to the paper “Christians and Jews: People of God” that was offered to the 219 General Assembly. As the advertisement for the symposium states, the paper was referred back to the offices “of Interfaith Relations and Theology and Worship for broader consultation and revision, including individuals, networks, committees and caucuses related to issues of the Middle East and interfaith understandings.”

There are as yet no internet recordings so I am working from memory and my thoughts will be general. But I was stuck by the focus of Burge’s speech which was mostly aimed at Christian Zionism and included the 37th Psalm as well as part of the Sermon on the Mount as it is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. By aiming at Christian Zionism and ignoring the reality of the needs of the modern State of Israel, I believe Burge failed to address them and his main audience which is the PC (U.S.A). The fact is his speech also failed to address the needs of the Palestinians.

Burge’s main idea was that for the Christian, Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promises to the Jewish people and I concur with that. But there is so much more that needs to be said about the Jewish people and about our responsibility to them. Burge tried to make a point that the early Christians no longer held Jerusalem as sacred or the land as important. That is simplistic since there was an evolving development of events and reactions that separated the Jews from the Christians, and it does not address the basic problems in the Middle East.

Members of the PC (U.S.A.) must address the problem from a Reformed position. We will not help anyone until we do so. And our sources must be both the Bible and modern history. From the Bible we gleam an ethical outlook which includes kindness and compassion but also truthfulness. As far as our faith goes, yes we are to proclaim Christ to the nations—all the nations. As the text states:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek, for in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17.)

But as far as the Jewish people are concerned let us not forget their history—or ours. I will not say that the Nazis were Christians, they were not, but they killed 6 million Jews; they almost wiped out a whole people and when extraordinary events occur Christians are called upon to do extraordinary things. In our past century we witnessed this slaughter and we witnessed the boatloads of Jewish exiles seeking a haven. We witnessed those who were turned away from nation after nation. We need to know that history, but most have forgotten it.

Such hatred was built on a foundation already there; it was laid in the name of Christianity in medieval Europe and beyond. During the Nazi years it was introduced in the Middle East by some Nazis; it is still there, we see it in Iran, within Hamas and Hezbollah and among many other groups.

We also need to know the history of the Jews in Palestine. Jewish neighborhoods have always existed in Palestine. Many do not know this. They do not know that the Jewish section of Jerusalem was emptied of Jews during the war of 1948 when 5 Arab nations attacked the new State of Israel. So along with the sad and horrific stories of the Palestinians we need to remember the Jewish story.

We have an obligation, not because of some biblical mandate for land or for a temple but because as Christians we must love both the Israeli and the Palestinian and help them toward a two state solution. So why as Reformed Christians should we care about the Jewish people? Why do we still see them as chosen by God?

First, I was stunned by the callousness toward the Old Testament as I listened to the conversation. It wasn’t there in everyone’s voice but it was there. When one interprets the Old Testament, as a Christian, it must first be approached from a historical view. This is the story of the Jews; it is their history and the history must be respected, even loved. And then the Christian story seen in the types, the promises and the prophecies inform the Christian about her faith. In fact a study of the appearances of the Lord of hosts is a beautiful study of the eternal Son of God. Truthfully the plan of God, the compassion of God envelops the whole O.T.

So the beginning of the Reformed attitude toward the Jewish people is built on the Old Testament. Their Scriptures are also the Christians and the New Testament grows out of theirs. (Try reading Hebrews without constantly returning to the O.T.) Jesus when explaining to his disciples his resurrection, purposes and being, refers to the law, the Prophets and the Writings. (Luke 24: 44) Christianity is not connected to the Koran, the Upanishads, or the Book of Shadows, not to any other sacred text, but it is forever joined to the Hebrew Bible of the Jewish people.

Salvation came through the Jews who were chosen by God for that purpose. As Jesus explained to the woman at the well, salvation is from the Jews. And as Paul stated, “From the stand point of the gospel they 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. (Romans 28-29).

David Torrance, a very Reformed pastor writes:

That ‘salvation is of the Jews’ was true of Israel in the Old and in the New Testament era and it is ever true. God revealed himself to his covenant people, in a way in which he has not revealed himself to any other people. To them were given ‘the very words of God’ (Rom 3:2), that is, God’s Word, God’s message, God’s Law. Within Israel God did great and marvelous things, many miracles, so that his power and his glory were made plain to other nations.

Torrance goes on to explain that Israel had no light in herself, but it was God’s light. And that Light was the Incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ. And then he speaks of Jesus the Jewish man who is God and all of this through the people that God chose.

Morally we cannot be untruthful about the Jewish State of Israel and the needs of the Jews. Morally we cannot be untruthful about the Palestinian people and their needs. God holds us accountable to both, not just to one side. We must, as Christians love them both. I did not see that in the symposium I watched today.

Charles Wiley asked when we speak theologically about the Jew, what do we mean? Or how do we define the theological Jew? I do not believe anyone truly answered that question. They knew what they wanted to say politically and ethnically, but how do you say that the Jew is the chosen one? If you say that you must stand before God with empty hands. But only empty hands can be filled with the grace of God.

The true fire

But he [Jesus] turned and rebuked them and said "you do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destory lives, but to save them. (Luke 9:55-56)

Too often we forget who we are. And we forget the promises of God; we even forget the meaning of his words. Recently, in one of my Bible readings in the St. James Daily Devotional I use, there was a commentary on the “Sons of Thunder” who wanted to call down fire on a Samaritan village because they rejected Jesus. (Luke 9:51-62)

Patrick Henry Reardon wrote of how God planned that the disciples should call down fire on the Samaritans, but not the fire they intended. He wrote:

Luke, who describes the wrath of Zebedee’s sons against the Samaritans, also tells the ironic “second half” of the story, when he comes to the Samaritans mission in the Acts of the Apostles. After Phillip baptized the Samaritans, Luke tells us, the church at Jerusalem “sent Peter and John to them, who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.”

As Reardon puts it, from heaven came the “true fire.” I think so many of us, recently; have wanted to call down a bit of fire ourselves, but God is calling us to pray for fire from heaven. The true fire, so that hearts will be illuminated and many will once again be renewed and changed by the word of God, including ourselves.

God has called us into a ministry of giving out the true gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit. Whether in the PCUSA, the EPC, the PCA or any denomination, we have a calling and are to carry God’s concern for the lost and hurting. We are to also pray that the many wolves howling over our denomination will find mercy and seek forgiveness.

Wasting money or upholding the faith?

On the 8th of October, undoubtedly while dealing with the complicated issues surrounding non-geographic presbyteries and whether to continue with synods, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Vice-Moderator, Landon Whitsitt, stated a provocative yet forthright opinion about a different subject. That is, Parnell et al v. San Francisco which, as most know, has to do with whether Lisa Larges, an unrepentant lesbian, should be ordained.

Whitsitt after reading an article in the layman on the appealing of the decision of the Synod of the Pacific’s Permanent Judicial Commission regarding biblical and confessional standards and the ordination of Lisa Larges, wrote on Twitter:

This is ridiculous. #ga219 and a majority of presbyteries have settled this. Quit wasting church money, please.

The SPJC ruled that since there were disagreements on how to interpret the biblical texts surrounding the issues of homosexuality, San Francisco Presbytery’s decision to ordain Larges was theologically acceptable. Yet my friend Mary Naegeli, who not only is a PC (U.S.A.) Teaching Elder and a teacher for Fuller Theological Seminary, but also the lead attorney in the case, stated on October the 8th, on her blog, “Bringing the Word to Life”:

The SPJC decision in the Parnell case, if permitted to stand, is a declaration to Presbyterians and the world that the PCUSA is no longer anchored in the Scriptures as “the only rule of faith and manners” (F-3.0107). Cut loose from our scriptural mooring, we become a church “tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14), a church with “itching ears, accumulating for [our]selves teachers to suit [our] own desires” (2Tim 4:3). And thus, adrift, having relinquished our moral authority, which the denomination possesses only when its laws and decisions are founded upon the revealed will of God (F-3.0107), we can no longer offer spiritual refuge to a lost and hurting world.

I do not understand why we so readily want to succumb to the secular culture of our day. And why appealing a case that is fraught with so much damage to our own souls is wasting the denomination’s money. Discipleship is a part of the calling of the Church and leading followers of Christ into holy lifestyles is a part of that calling.

This particular case is no small thing. At its depths lie all of the foundational truths of Christianity. Using the same argument the SPJC used, a high court of the denomination could cite several differing interpretations of the biblical truth that Jesus is God, bringing forward some heretical views that insist Jesus is not God, and say that any view is acceptable because differing scholars have differing views.

And that is so for all Christian doctrine such as the Trinity, Christ’s redemption, even the being of God. Just at this time, all biblical and confessional truths have counter views knocking at the door of the domination asking to be acknowledged. This case sets a precedent which if allowed to stand would be unbearable.

The case must be fought and won for the sake of the Church universal. When the PCUSA sinks inward before the hardness of its own baals, as it will if the appeal is not won, a very small corner of Christianity will be gone. And a candle that was meant to glow beautifully in the night warming the heart of the broken with the good news of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, will instead become a part of the night.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer & Scott Anderson- and the innocence of Christ

Saturday, the 8th of October, Scott Anderson will be ordained as a teaching elder (pastor). He will be the first unrepentant gay person to be ordained as a pastor in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) since 10-A was passed on July the 10th. Many orthodox/evangelical Presbyterians, including myself, feel extremely sad about the day. We, who are a part of the PCUSA, are all complicit in the ordination because our denomination is a connectional one.

But we are sad about many other sins also. We have too often gone through our day without prayer and the study of God’s word. We have failed to plead for the lives of the unborn and cared little for the poor. I personally have too many times failed to love the prostitutes who live across the street. I am still praying to care for the pimps and the johns who use them.

The denomination, as a whole, including the orthodox/evangelical must all repent. Not just Anderson, but all of us as we stand before our holy God in our failure and our sin. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Christian who often called the Church to repentance. From his prison cell he sent a letter to his friend writing of suffering, it shows that his time was not unlike our own. He wrote:

The righteous person suffers because of unrighteousness, because of the senselessness and absurdity of events in the world. He suffers because of the destruction of the divine order of marriage and the family. He suffers not only because it means privation for him, but because he recognizes something ungodly in it. The world says: That is how it is, always will be and must be. The righteous person says it ought not to be so; it is against God.

The above is from a small book, Meditating on the Word. It contains a few of Bonhoeffer’s sermons translated and published in 1986. The one that I have received the most help from is on psalm 58, one of the psalms of vengeance. This was written and circulated during the beginning of devastating times for the Confessing Church. The Editor of this book tells the story of a mother who went to visit her son’s friend in prison. The mother wrote, “’Evangelical Pastor’ is written in large letters above the cell door …”

And yet as Bonhoeffer exegetes the psalm he points a finger at all reminding them that only an innocent man may pray this psalm. And no one is innocent but Jesus. Bonhoeffer writes, “No, we sinners do not pray this song of vengeance, innocence alone prays this psalm. The innocence of Christ steps before the world and accuses it.” And then he asks us, “And when Christ accuses the world of sin, are we not ourselves also among the accused?

Reaching into the horror of the text, “The righteous will be glad when they see the vengeance; they will bath their feet in the blood of the wicked,” Bonhoeffer pulls out our very salvation. Christ is the wicked one; he takes the sins of the world upon himself:

Jesus Christ died the death of the godless; he was stricken by God’s wrath and vengeance. His blood is the blood which God’s righteousness required for the transgression of his commandments. God’s vengeance has been carried out in the midst of the earth in a manner more fearful than even this psalm knows about. Christ, the innocent, died the death of the wicked, so that we need not die. Now we stand beneath his cross as the godless ones, and now a most difficult mystery is resolved: Jesus Christ, the innocent, prays in the hour of God’s vengeance on the wicked of the earth, in which our psalm is fulfilled: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Lk. 23:34)

Bonhoeffer goes on to speak of how now in our guilt bathing our feet in the blood of the wicked takes on a different meaning. “The blood of the wicked has become our salvation, making us clean from all sins.” And he also reminds the reader that whoever comes to Christ will never be touched by God’s wrath but whoever does not—“the one who despises the cross” will suffer eternal death.

So all of us, including Scot Anderson, in this our troubled and unrepentant denomination, must repent and then we may stand as the innocent in Christ awaiting his coming when all things will be made right.

A final on "The Rise of Radical Feminism in the Mainline Churches: A History"

In my last posting on the rise of radical feminism in mainline churches I stated that I would post a follow up with some extra thoughts about radical feminism in the church today. Most of my thoughts are about the issues revolving around radical feminism, but also I want to offer a word of caution to the orthodox men in the church. I will begin with the latter.

As I posted my nine postings I noticed that I had only one male comment. But, for the orthodox this isn’t a ‘women only’ issue, instead it is about a movement and doctrines that have deeply affected all of the mainline churches and the PC (U.S.A.) in particular. Not only have I experienced the push for a change in ordination standards at all of the Presbyterian Women’s gatherings I have attended, as I review PW’s magazine Horizons, I have often had to write about some author’s heretical views of Christology and soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). These are two of the most basic Christian essentials.

As I traveled to the Fellowship Gathering in August I also discovered Presbyterian pastors who were unfamiliar with Voices of Orthodox Women a renewal group which writes about theological views coming from women in the Presbyterian denomination. This particular group, of which I am a board member, has very helpful information including a review of the 2011-12, PW’s Bible Study, “Confessing the Beatitudes” and reviews of Horizons which I generally write. The latest is here: Review of the September/October 2011 Horizons Magazine

And for an understanding of how Radical Feminism continues to affect the Presbyterian denomination one only need look at the last General Assembly held in 2010. Some of the overtures which came were attempts to change the Book of Order, in the section on marriage, from ‘between a man and woman’ to ‘couples.’ This was an attempt to change the denomination's constitution to allow same gender marriage. The Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns recommended passage placing this advice on the item:

The practice of excluding people who are gay and lesbian from marriage has its roots in the persistence of patriarchal standards for the lives of women and men. The notion that men and maleness is superior dictates that men and women behave in particular ways that abide by the rules their sex dictates. For this reason, same-gender loving women and men are perceived as a direct threat to the norms that patriarchy lays out, as they, in their loving, challenge the models of prescribed masculinity and femininity that patriarchy determines. Gay men are a threat as they are perceived as “too feminine,” and lesbian women are perceived as “too masculine.”

In withholding the right to marry from same-gender loving people, the church is upholding this patriarchal standard for humanity. As a group committed to standing against patriarchy and its effects within the world and the church, ACWC advocates that same-gender loving women and men be allowed to participate in the commitment of marriage. The ACWC draws particular attention to the vulnerability of lesbian women in this exclusion, as these particular members of the body of Christ find themselves excluded and marginalized both for their gender identity and sexual orientation.

The real truth is that both women and men, who are faithful to Scripture, care not at all for the caricatures the ACWC provided in their advice, instead they care for living out their commitment to Christ by obeying his word. Their desire is to bring sinners of all kinds to the loving, forgiving, transforming grace of Jesus Christ. Their desire is also that unrepentant sinners, of any kind, not be in leadership over the precious people of God’s pasture.

In an attempt to enlarge the theological diversity, including orthodox, of ACWC, and others, a commissioner offered an overture asking for just that. ACWC committee members worked double time defeating it, even stating that they did indeed have a theological diversity of people. (Alas, one evangelical among many and she was not consulted when the above advice was placed on the overture.) And the ACWC leadership was seemingly unaware that one of the orthodox ladies speaking for the overture to allow more diversity had been turned down for membership in the ACWC for no apparent reason.

Radical feminism is the movement which has pushed the denomination toward the brink. Its radicalized theology is now mixing heavily with Queer theology; the denomination which opens its doors to the evolving theologies will in the end be everything but Christian. I am in the midst of writing a review of a book published by Westminster/John Knox Press. Gathering those driven away: A Theology of Incarnation mixes apopthatic mysticism (the way of negation) with radical feminism, Gnostic texts and queer theology; nothing is left of the Christian faith. It is total reversal.

There are several ways one can, as an orthodox Christian, stand against such devastating theologies. One is simply to be aware of them and be prepared to give answers. The most important way is, of course, to keep proclaiming the biblical faith; lifting up Jesus Christ as the one unique Savior. Another is prayer and fellowship with one another. Above all, simply keep standing, remembering Jesus is truly Lord in every situation.

An important practical stance against radical feminism is to keep uplifting the ministries of orthodox/reformed/evangelical women. Lift them up because their ministries are important, not to fill quotas. I recently listened to one of the women pastors at a local Evangelical Presbyterian Church. She stated that it was such a relief to her, after leaving the PC (U.S.A.) to know that others chose her because of her gifts and not because she filled a quota.

I want to end this with a video of the President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Richard Mouw as he spoke at the Fellowship Gathering. Listen for three things: the lifting high of the redemptive work of Christ, the encouragement to women as they minister and the call for a broader ecumenicalism which includes not only the extremely progressive UCC, but also all of the other Reformed denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in America.


Richard Mouw, Thursday Evening August 25 at the Fellowship Gathering from Fellowship of Presbyterians on Vimeo.

T.D. Jakes & Oneness Pentecostalism- a link to Pure Church

I have often thought I should say something about the T.D. Jakes’ book in my Church’s book store. I haven’t but I am reminded of the need again. About a year ago I mentioned in a posting I wrote on Phyllis Tickle’s book, The Great Emergence, about how many Pentecostal denominations do correct supposedly new revelation by use of the word of God. I was refuting Tickle’s contention that the Pentecostals offered a new kind of direction that tended to lean more on the Holy Spirit than the authority of Scripture. I was reminded of this while reading at Thabiti Anyabwile’s blog Pure Church.

Anyabwile has written about T.D. Jakes who has his roots in Oneness Pentecostalism. That denomination teaches that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are only manifestations of the one God. In other words, sometimes God is Father, sometimes Son and sometimes the Holy Spirit. What orthodox Christians refer to as the Persons of the Trinity, Oneness Pentecostalism refers to as dimensions or manifestations, but not persons who are co-eternal and co-equal.

While Anyabwile is writing about a controversy he is concerned about among those he ministers with, he has posted a section of his book, The Decline of African American Theology. The section is about Jakes and should be helpful to anyone concerned with Jakes theology.

Anyabwile begins:

"Reviving old heresies: Bishop T. D. Jakes and the Oneness controversy.

Perhaps the most significant conflict regarding the doctrine of God among African Americans at the close of the twentieth century coincides with the rise and prominence of Bishop Thomas Dexter (T. D.) Jakes (1958-) of the Dallas, Texas-based Potter’s House Ministries. Writers at The New York Times speculate that Bishop Jakes may be the “next Billy Graham,” while journalists at Time Magazine dub him “the best preacher in America” and one of the twenty-five most influential evangelicals in America.[1] His influence extends to millions worldwide through his television outreach, speaking tours and popular books. Regrettably, his doctrine of God is taken from doctrinal errors roundly rejected by many modern Pentecostal and Evangelical churches as well as the early Christian church.

Bishop Jakes subscribes to a Oneness Pentecostal doctrine of God. Oneness Pentecostalism is a branch of Pentecostalism with its modern roots extending to the Azusa Street revival of 1906 and revival meetings featuring Canadian preacher R. E. McAlister (1880-1953) and evangelist Frank Ewart (1876-1947) between 1913 and 1915. McAlister and Ewart departed from traditional and orthodox trinitarian views of the Godhead and taught the radical unity of God by denying that God existed in three Persons. They held that the one God appeared in three distinct “modes” or “manifestations”—as Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as Holy Spirit in regeneration and indwelling—but that there was only one real Person in the Godhead, namely Jesus. Also known as “Modalism,” Ewart’s teachings spread rapidly through Pentecostal denominations. At its 1916 General Assembly, the Assemblies of God, a major branch of Pentecostalism, rejected the Oneness doctrine of God and required adherence to trinitarian theology."

You can read the whole article here, “Collateral Damage in the Invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room.”

If you only want to read the section on Jakes from Anyabwile’s book, just scroll down the posting. But while I am writing this I would recommend the book, The Decline of African American Theology. Not only will you be reading excellent reformed theology, you will read about the sufferings and the faith of African Americans throughout the history of the United States.

[1] Sweeping Church History: A review of The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why