At daggers drawn with 'demonized flesh' (1)

Alan Ireland

Murray Dixon and the specter of Christian Zionism

PART ONE - Christian Zionism: a 'heresy' defined

If Israel falls so does our salvation. ~ Dennis McLeod, director, Christian Friends of Israel NZ, in Challenge Weekly, August 7, 2006.

We are in a fight for our lives and with each passing day the world comes against us with more venom and hatred. There is a lying spirit at work in the world and in your nation that is demonizing Israel and perversly calling Palestinian terrorists innocent victims. We are fighting not only demonized flesh but powers and principalities, the father of lies. — Appeal by Christians in Israel.

But for the mention of Israel and Palestinian terrorists, one could be forgiven for thinking the above passage, with its reference to "demonized flesh", was written during the witch-hunting hysteria of the 17th century. In reality, it was written by a group of Christian Zionists in April 2002, to solicit demonstrative support for Israel in "it's (sic) hour of need". The 45 signatories to the appeal included Murray Dixon, of Israel Trust of the Anglican Church (ITAC). Among the others were representatives of such organizations as Jews for Jesus, Intercessors for Israel, and Trumpet of Salvation.

Readers of the Manawatu Standard in Palmerston North, New Zealand, have been introduced to Dixon on several occasions.

He is one of the people the paper turns to when it wants a comment from a local person or former local person with expertise in, or a personal connection to, a topic of interest or current event. On July 26, 2006, the paper described him as "rector of Christ Church, an Anglican church in the old city of Jerusalem". By July 28, he had become "vicar of a Jerusalem church". On both days, he was able to provide the paper with what were presented as glimpses of life in Israel during the opening days of the fighting with Hezb Allah in southern Lebanon.

One smiles at the imagery associated with the words "Anglican vicar". One pictures a dog-collared, avuncular chap, beaming congenially at a slightly bored congegation, or serving scones to refined parishioners at a vicarage garden party. But can this picture be applied to Dixon, who is invariably described in published literature not as a "rector" or a "vicar", but as a member, employee, or associate of a succession of somewhat secretive Christian Zionist organizations — International Christian Embassy Jerusalem [1], Prayer for Israel, The Church's Ministry Among Jewish People (CMJ), and now ITAC. There appears to be considerable overlap between these groups, whose reticence on some issues is, one must add, a matter of necessity. If part of your mission in Israel is to "bring [Jews] to faith in Jesus as their Messiah", [2] you have to be circumspect.

Christian Zionism: a 'heresy' defined

So what is Christian Zionism, and when did it arise? In Non-Jewish Zionism: Its Roots in Western History (Zed Press, 1983), Regina Sharif says it emerged at the time of the Reformation, when "Simple, literal interpretation [of the Bible] . . . became the new mode of exegesis, as the traditional symbolic and allegorical methods of Biblical exegesis were abandoned by Protestant reformers" (Page 12). This led to an "interest in the fulfilment of Biblical prophecies concerning the End of Time" — an apocalyptic period in which "the Jews scattered in their present dispersion would be regathered in Palestine in order to prepare for the Second Coming of Christ".

Jewish Zionism emerged much later, in response to a perceived rise in anti-Semitism in Europe, with the publication by Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl (1860-1904) of Der Judenstaat in 1896. Not all Jews warmed to Herzl's call for a Jewish state, however. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which the British Government "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", was opposed by the lone Jewish cabinet minister, Edwin Montagu, who described it as "anti-Semitic". He saw it, he said, as evidence that "many a non-Jew in England wants to get rid of us. . ." (Cabinet No 2A/24, August 13, 1917). He also opposed Zionism, which he described as "a mischievous political creed". In the United States, the New York Times of March 5, 1919, carried an article about a petition to President Woodrow Wilson from 31 prominent Jewish Americans who warned of "bitter and sanguinary conflicts" if the Zionist enterprise went ahead. "The idea that Zionism and the State of 'Israel' is the protector of Jews is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the Jewish People," True Torah Jews has declared. Central to the objections to Zionism is the observation that "If Zionism, as a historical phenomenon, was a reaction to anti-Semitism, it follows that, in certain circumstances, the Zionists had an interest in provoking the very disease which, ultimately, they hoped to cure" (David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, 1977, Futura Publications). Hence Herzl's comment on Page 19 of his Diaries: "Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies." His expectation was not misplaced: One of the first reviews of Der Judenstaat appeared in the Westungarischer Grenzbote, an anti-Semitic journal published in Bratislava by Ivan von Simonyi, a member of the Hungarian Diet.

The proposal for a Jewish national home — and its realization in the state of Israel — was embraced wholeheartedly, however, by Southern Baptist Convention and other evangelical Protestants in the Bible Belt of America — Israel's "only safety belt" in the opinion of Baptist pastor and Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell (CBS, June 8, 2003). Falwell, who has had close ties with Israel's right-wing Likud Party, was awarded the (Vladimir) Jabotinsky Centennial Medal for friendship to Israel in 1980. "The only difference between his and Jabotinsky’s philosophy is that Falwell talks of Christ," says William Gordon, co-author of Jerry Falwell: An Unauthorized Profile. "But he talks of a militant Christ, a kind of Jabotinsky Christ. . ." The relationship between Likud and the religious right in the US was established by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin during the Carter and Reagan administrations, but has roots that reach back to the end of the 19th century.

William E Blackstone (1841-1935), a disciple of evangelist John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), became the first American to campaign for Zionism when, in 1891, he drew up the Blackstone Petition, or Memorial, which he addressed to President Benjamin Harrison. The petition asserted that, according to "God's distribution of nations", Palestine belonged to the Jews, who should be restored to "[the] land of which they were so cruelly despoiled by our Roman ancestors". It attracted 413 illustrious signatories, including John D Rockefeller, James Cardinal Gibbons, and future president William McKinley, and was also sent to Queen Victoria, Czar Alexander III, and other European leaders.

Over the years, in response to events that supposedly confirm the imminence of the "End Times", and in tandem with the ascendancy of Christian conservatism in the US, there has been a remarkable rise in para-church organizations and activities dedicated to an expansionist, invincible Israel. In addition to the organizations listed above, there is Jerusalem-based Bridges for Peace, founded in 1976, which "giv[es] Christians the opportunity to actively express their biblical responsibility before God to be faithful to Israel and the Jewish community". Christian Friends of Israel, which was founded in 1985, has a similar mission statement. Then there is the Texas-based Institute for Hebraic-Christian Studies, "a non-proselytizing Christian Zionist educational organization", which was founded by Richard and Peggy Booker in 1997.

More notable is Christians United for Israel (CUFI), launched on February 7, 2006, by Pastor John C Hagee, of Cornerstone Church, San Antonio, Texas, as "an umbrella organization under which all pro-Israel Christians in America can speak as one in support of the Jewish state". Specifically, The Jerusalem Post reported, CUFI planned to persuade the US Government "to stop pressuring Israel to give up land for peace". Later the same year, on July 19, BBC News reported that more than 3400 evangelical Christians had arrived in Washington "to lobby lawmakers as part of the first annual summit of CUFI". The delegates were from all 50 states and had 280 meetings scheduled on Capitol Hill, the BBC said. Their mission, according to Aljazeera on July 26: "to ask [George W] Bush’s admin "not to restrain Israel in any way in the pursuit of Hamas and Hezbollah". Then, on October 1, The Jerusalem Post reported plans for later that day for a "Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem . . . expected to be marked by as many as 30 million [evangelical Christians] in 100,000 churches in more than 100 nations". The annual day of prayer was launched by the New York-based Eagles' Wings Ministry in 2003.

Ever the cynic, Herzl promoted his proposal for a Zionist state among Western non-Jews by playing on their fears and prejudices, and specifically on their view of the East as a sink of vicious, voluptuous iniquity. "For Europe we would constitute over there part of a bulwark against Asia as well as the advance post of civilization against barbarism. . ." he wrote in Der Judenstaat. Israel was to be the new Sparta, an exemplar of the principle of "purity of arms", which would, figuratively speaking, hold the mountain pass of Thermopylae against the degenerate "Persian hordes". Unsurprisingly, given the deep emotions aroused by this imagery, gatherings of the Christian Zionist faithful have since taken on the frantic fervor of a Nuremburg rally, as Gary M Burge observes in an undated internet article about International Christian Embassy's one-week Tabernacles Festival in Jerusalem:

On Tuesday the 14th 15,000 people paraded outside Jerusalem's Old Walled City. The predominant colors for clothes were red, white and blue, and many Americans wore necklaces sporting a Star of David, a Menorah and a Christian fish symbol. American flags were distributed liberally to cheering parade-watchers. A delegation from the South wore gallon-sized cowboy hats and steer-horned belt buckles while they carried a large banner, "Oklahoma loves Israel".

Definitions of Christian Zionism abound. The following, by Donald Wagner, professor of religion and Middle Eastern studies at North Park University in Chicago, is from a series of five articles on Christian Zionism published in The Daily Star (Lebanon) in October 2003:

Christian Zionists . . . have a pessimistic view of history and wait in eager anticipation for the unfolding of a series of wars and tragedies pointing to the return of Jesus. The establishment of the state of Israel, the rebuilding of the Third Temple, the rise of the Antichrist and the buildup of armies poised to attack Israel, are among the signs leading to the final battle and Jesus’ return. Leading Christian Zionist authorities in Bible prophecy seek to interpret political developments according to the prophetic schedule of events that should unfold according to their view of scripture. As an apocalyptic and dualistic type of theology, the movement looks in history for the escalation of power and influence of satanic forces aligned to the Antichrist, who, as the end draws near, will do battle with Israel and those aligned with it. Judgment will befall nations and individuals according to how they "bless Israel" (Genesis 12:3).

Wagner goes on to say that "Christian Zionists often view mainline Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic denominations with hostility, and have at times considered the World Council of Churches and related bodies to be tools of the Antichrist. In the Holy Land, Christian Zionists have been hostile toward Palestinian Christians and generally detest Muslims as evil forces worshipping another God".

How much of the above applies to CMJ / ATAC? Of course, only the "directors" of the organizations can answer that question. But in the past, they have proved adroit at foiling outsiders' attempts to discern their position, saying such things as "he is still quoting old aims of CMJ which were changed in early 2001" and
". . . I don't know what the eschatological views of most of our staff are" (ITAC member Tony Higton's undated response to criticisms of CMJ and ITAC from Anglican vicar Stephen Sizer). It is safe to assume, however, that they would not quarrel with the following definition from Holy Land-Hollow Jubilee, 1999:

At its simplest, Christian Zionism has been defined as "Christian support for Zionism". Central to Christian Zionism is the belief in the abiding relevance of the promise God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you".

Higton, et al., also have a ready rejoinder to any allegation they are "hostile" toward Palestinian Christians or "detest" Muslims. They point out that they are punctilious in expressing concern for Palestinians of all faiths in their various publications. This laboured solicitude did not, however, prevent a Palmerston North member of Prayer for Israel from sending me an issue of Letter From Jerusalem that talks of "Arabs" of "the so-called West Bank" being "horribly slaughtered" by their "fellow Arabs", and goes on to claim that bludgeoning and hacking people to death "has been a traditional Arab occupation since time immemorial". When I complained about this to Murray Dixon, who was director of Prayer for Israel in Palmerston North at the time, he replied that although the publication had possibly come from his office, Prayer for Israel had no "organic link-up" with the publisher. (Personal letter, January 29, 1990.)

So where does the charge of heresy arise? According to a statement from the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center's conference, Challenging Christian Zionism: Theology, Politics, and the Palestine-Israel Conflict, held April 14-18, 2004, in Jerusalem, Christian Zionism, in its extreme form, is heretical because it "places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ's love and justice". A statement, adopted by more than 600 participants from 32 countries at the conference's conclusion, declared that "we categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that undermines the biblical message of love, mercy and justice".

British director of Prayer for Israel Ken Burnett — who wrote the Foreword to Dixon's book The Rebirth and Restoration of Israel (Sovereign World, 1988) — once gave me an insight into his philosophy. "Of course, this is not the real world," he said, gesturing at some rows of empty chairs and groups of Christian Zionists chatting after a meeting. No, the real world was in a different dimension, where conflict raged continuously between the forces of good and evil. ("Deliverance minister" Derek Prince [1915-2003] used to soliloquize endlessly in the same vein.) But what is this philosophy, if it is not another manifestation of ancient Persian cosmic dualism — of the world-view one finds in Zoroastrianism and Manichaeanism? And is it not this, rather than Christianity, that inspires American presidents, who talk of the "Evil Empire", of the "Axis of Evil", and of the need to rid the world, once and for all, of "evildoers"? And is it not this that underlies the nauseating, self-congratulatory analysis of current events that allows British Prime Minister Tony Blair to make such fatuous statements as "Muslims hate us because we are free and democratic"? One could laugh at this attitude if it were not so tragic — if it did not virtually guarantee that, despite declarations of determination to get to the "root causes" of "terrorism", we will continue to make a bigger and bigger mess of everything. In view of the scrapping of habeas corpus in the United States, and the wholesale assault on civil liberties since the advent of the "war on terrorism", one also has to ask: "How free are we, anyway?"

Anglican Synod anti-Semitic, says Dixon

Energetic as the ITAC replies to criticism are, they pale beside the furious response to the February 6, 2006, decision of the General Synod of the Church of England to "heed the call from our sister church, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East, for morally responsible investment in the Palestinian occupied territories and, in particular, to disinvest from companies profiting from the illegal occupation, such as Caterpillar Inc [3], until they change their policies . . ." The text of the response is as follows:

On Monday, Feb 6th, the General Synod of the Church of England voted in favor of removing investments that were seen as "profiting from the illegal occupation of Palestinian land." As a community founded in the late 18th century with a historic connection to the Jewish people, the Israel Trust of the Anglican Church, or Christ Church Jerusalem, is deeply disturbed by this recent decision.

During the discussion of the motion, the Synod did not allow the Anglicans for Israel lobby to respond. This failure to listen to both sides of a difficult situation culminated in a regrettable decision.

The continuing pre-occupation with Israel, while at the same time ignoring other areas of suffering and strife such as China in Tibet and The Sudan in Darfur, points to anti-Semitism. Christ Church is committed to combating anti-Semitism on all fronts, including those that appear in an anti-Israel guise.

The Israel Trust of the Anglican Church is in no way connected with the Church of England in sponsoring this initiative. The Church of England would be better served to find practical ways to facilitate dialogue instead of passing one-sided resolutions. This naïve action will do nothing to promote genuine reconciliation between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East.

Christ Church Jerusalem, is the oldest Anglican Church in the Middle East and the founding church of the Diocese of Jerusalem. It is an evangelical witness in the heart of Jerusalem's Old City.

For interviews and further information please contact Murray Dixon at: 054-636-9239

Condemnation of the synod's move also came from the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, who claimed to be "ashamed to be an Anglican." He charged it "ignores the trauma of ordinary Jewish people" in Israel subjected to "terrorist attacks" (as though the bulldozing of Palestinian homes by Caterpillar tractors were unrelated to "terrorist attacks"). But the prize for hyperbole must go to Irene Lancaster, of the Centre for Jewish Studies at Manchester University, who opined: "The writing is on the wall for the Jews of Great Britain, 350 years after they settled here."

On the other side, support for the move came from the American-based Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), which said divestment "stands in the best tradition of nonviolent efforts for change". JVP was also a signatory to the following statement:

We, the undersigned representatives of Israeli and Jewish organizations, have witnessed the Occupation first hand. In our view, Israel's Occupation and settlement policies stem more from territorial claims than from genuine concerns of security, which can only be addressed through a complete end to the Occupation and peace with the Palestinians. Of the 12,000 Palestinian homes demolished by Israel in the Occupied Territories since 1967, less than 5% were demolished for security reasons (and even then we oppose demolition as a form of collective punishment, illegal under international law). In 95% of the cases the families involved were completely innocent of any security offense and were never even accused of or charged with any offense.

We therefore extend to you and the Church of England our unreserved support of the synod’s call to disinvest from Caterpillar and other companies profiting from the Occupation. This is an entirely appropriate moral stand for civil society to take. Caterpillar custom-makes its massive D-9 and D-10 bulldozers for the express purpose of demolishing Palestinian homes, and their machines are sold to Israel as military equipment. The demolition of Palestinian homes is prohibited by international law. The right to a home and decent housing is a fundamental human right. The Fourth Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to protect the well-being of vulnerable civilians under its control, and forbids collective punishment.

Paula Abrams-Hourani, European Jews for a Just Peace
Gaby Belz, Just Peace Between Israel and Palestine (Switzerland)
Paola Canarutto, Rete-ECO (Italy)
Liliane Cordova Kaczerginski, Union Juive Francaise pour la paix
Jeff Halper, The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD)
Abe Hayeem, Just Peace (UK)
Ruth Hiller, New Profile (Israel)
Dan Judelson, European Jews for a Just Peace
Richard Kuper, Jews for Justice for Palestinians (UK)
Vivien Lichtenstein, Joint Action for Israeli-Palestinian Peace (UK)
Orna Neumann, ICAHD UK
Rachel Ostrowitz, Noga Feminist Magazine (Israel)
Mitchell Plitnick, Jewish Voice for Peace (US)
Fanny-Michaela Reisin, European Jews for a Just Peace - Germany
Gila Svirsky, Coalition of Women for Peace (Israel)
Sergio Yahni, The Alternative Information Center (Israel)

CMJ / ITAC is thus in a challenged position, to say the least. Not only is it at odds with the Episcopal (Anglican) Diocese of Jerusalem, it is at odds with the Church of England. And it has accused all those who voted for the divestment motion, who included Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, of anti-Semitism. One must assume, too, that the charge of anti-Semitism is leveled at the Bishop of Jerusalem, Riah Abu El Assal, who made the original plea to the general synod. This read, in part:

I am saddened to witness less courage within our church than one would expect. Both time and energy have been spent on issues such as human sexuality. But non-violent instruments such as divestment from companies that produce death rather than life does not get the same attention. No wonder the church is loosing credibility in many parts of our world.

Bishop Riah has spoken on several occasions about the phenomenom of Christian Zionism, and made the following reference to it in an address entitled The Position of the Anglican Church on Jerusalem Forum:

Unfortunately, there are some Christians who seem to share the Israeli government's policy, giving more importance to the State of Israel than to the story of Jesus Christ. Many Christian Zionists in the West see the Palestinian Christian presence as both politically and theologically awkward. To them the return of the Jews to Jerusalem is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Likewise, a commitment to rebuilding the city, and particularly the Third Temple, is seen to hasten the Second Coming of Christ. Local Palestinian Christians have no role in such a theology, which is inspired by the Old Testament and which holds the people of Israel, the Jews, to have a unique relationship with God. This attitude seems to be far from being Christocentric. It inevitably de-emphasizes Jesus, His death and resurrection. Instead, salvation and judgment are redefined whereby Christians will be judged according to their actions on behalf of the State of Israel. Such a theology often explains why Palestinian Christians are forgotten, as their co-religionists from the United States, Europe and elsewhere pledge their financial and moral support to the Jewish State.

Another outspoken critic of Christian Zionism is Nazareth-born Roman Catholic Patriarch Michel Sabbah, who was joined on August 14, 2006, by Syrian Orthodox Archbishop Swerios Malki Mourad and the Episcopal and Evangelical Lutheran bishops of Jerusalem in a Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism that charged "the Christian Zionist program provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism". It added (as reported by David Dolan of Cybercast News Service on September 6, 2006): "We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation." In reply, International Christian Embassy, Christian Friends of Israel and Bridges for Peace issued a predictable, largely irrelevant statement that rejected "replacement theology" — the belief that the church has replaced the Jews in God's plans and purposes — and said that this theology has played "a pivotal role in the persecution of Jews through the centuries". (Read: The bishops are closet anti-Semites.) The "embassy's" spokesman, American David Parsons, added for good measure that the bishops lead flocks "that are actually fairly small" in the Holy Land. (Read: This is a numbers game.) Since wealth is the reward of righteousness in the Christian Zionist / neoconservative philosophy, the size of one's flock is a reflection of one's standing in the eyes of the Almighty.

The regional opposition to Christian Zionism, and to International Christian Embassy in particular, is not of recent origin. Two relevant documents from 1988 are the Statement About the So-called Christian Embassy by the heads of churches in Jerusalem, dated April 15; and the press release entitled Middle East Council of Churches Reject Second Christian Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, dated April 18. The latter speaks of the "sacralization of the modern state of Israel" by those who apparently believe the purposes of God are pursued through the policies of the Israeli state, and will be fulfilled only through the state's irredentism. They appear not to know that, as Augustine observed in City of God, the Almighty does not invest in bricks and mortar or, by extension, in acres of real estate. Likewise, he does not invest in the makers of demolition equipment.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Article first appeared here: islamnz.com
URL: http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2010/07/10/at-daggers-drawn-with-demonized-flesh