As supporters of several children through World Vision since 2008, my wife and I were disappointed when we read the recent comments about Israel by Rich Stearns (president of World Vision in the US) in the Washington Post (click here to read the op/ed piece).

In his article, Rich suggested that the Israelis should have found a way to allow up to 50,000 Palestinian worshipers to enter Israel recently so they could attend Easter services at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in East Jerusalem.

While not overtly anti-Israel, the tone of the article was nonetheless critical of Israel's security measures during Easter week. Rich cited erroneous statistics for the number of permits the Israelis issued this year so that Palestinian Christians could enter East Jerusalem (he said it was only 2,000-3,000 while the Israelis say the actual number was more like 20,000).

I sent World Vision an email last week about my concerns and received back a response from a nice lady named Victoria. I'm copying and pasting the thread below so you can read my original email, Victoria's answer, and finally my response back to her. Of course, the thread reads backwards chronologically (that is, the more recent emails come first).

My concern is that the conservative wing of Christendom—which has traditionally been a pro-Israel stronghold—may be slowly backing away from that stance. The liberal and left-leaning groups and denominations have been anti-Israel, for the most part, for decades—so we have come to expect that from them. But this recent wearing down of support for Israel among evangelicals is something that's relatively new. Frankly, it frightens me.

Let's hope and pray that this isn't a harbinger of things to come. The continued erosion of evangelical support for the State of Israel could have serious long-term ramifications—both for us (as Bible believers) and for Israel.

Now is the time to take a stand and to let your voice be heard!

Praying for the peace of Jerusalem,

Gary Hedrick

Gary's correspondence with World Vision:

Thank you, Victoria, for your response to my earlier email (below). I appreciate your taking the time to address my concerns. I'm sure this is one of the more challenging aspects of your work at World Vision!

If I may speak candidly, though, I continue to be concerned about Rich's comments in the Washington Post. You took issue with the Israeli envoy who called the allegations "libelous," but let me remind you that statements like these do not require malicious intent in order to be misleading to many readers and even to be potentially detrimental to Israeli security.

Please allow me to be specific. In Rich's piece from the April 4 Religion News Service (click here), he talks about the Israeli checkpoints and security barriers:

Those who make it across checkpoints and into Israel are still barricaded by numerous walls and other security obstructions. As a result, even many who have permits are unable to make it to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In 2010, a Palestinian colleague of mine at World Vision, who had warm memories as a child of the Holy Fire service, was able to return to the Holy Sepulchre. She described the scene for those able to gain entrance to the church: “The crowd, striving to stay joyful, could still feel the change of what Easter had now become and the dark cloud of checkpoints, police forces, and denial of entry that had obscured the joy of this holiday.”

If I could speak directly with Rich, I would point out that these are security precautions, not security obstructions. There's a significant difference, I think, between measures that are defensive and precautionary and others that may be unnecessarily obstructive. Would you call the fence around the lions at the zoo an "obstruction"?

The fact is that the walls, barriers, checkpoints, and other security measures have been in response to Palestinian terrorism. I agree that these measures are inconvenient in many ways; however, they are necessary. More importantly, they have worked.

I'm sure the Israelis themselves wish this massive security apparatus wasn't necessary. Does anyone seriously think the Israelis relish spending multiplied tens of millions of dollars every year on defending themselves from terrorists? I mean, really? Seriously?

Could we take a little trip down memory lane? Many of us remember the 1990s, when thousands of Palestinians would flood from the West Bank into Israel in the mornings on their way to work. 

During that same time period, Arab people in the north came across the Lebanese border on assigned days in droves to be treated free of charge by the Israeli doctors at the hospital in Nahariya. We would stand there and watch as some of them were carried across the border on stretchers. Others were in wheelchairs. Still others hobbled as best they could with the assistance of loved ones. 

We also remember when Israeli companies had factories in Gaza and employed hundreds of Palestinian people. It was advantageous for the Israelis because of the low labor costs and it was advantageous for the Palestinians because it provided gainful employment.

This is how things used to be. Then what happened? Palestinian terrorists escalated their relentless campaigns of murder--sending suicide bombers onto buses, into shopping malls, and into other public areas, killing dozens of innocent Israeli civilians--men, women, and even children and the elderly. We all saw the horrible, bloody scenes on TV--just unbelievable. Palestinian snipers perched on elevated areas around Jerusalem and actually shot Jewish babies dead in their strollers. I could go on and on.

So the Israelis were forced to beef up their security measures. They set up checkpoints, barriers, and a long wall around certain areas of the West Bank, among other things. They were defending themselves. Throughout the history of mankind, self defense has been almost universally regarded as a fundamental human right. So why should it be any less so for the Israelis?

It is also important to note that the Israelis' security measures have been effective. Terrorist attacks have declined dramatically over the past four or five years. And the decline surely isn't due to any lack of determination on the part of the terrorists. Just last week, in fact, a young Palestinian man was intercepted at an Israeli checkpoint near Nablus wearing explosives on his body (click here). Who knows how many innocent people might have been killed if he had made it into Israel?

It is simply not feasible for Palestinians to roam around at will, even if they claim to be Christians who are going somewhere to worship, as long as the militants continue their deadly anti-Semitic crusade. We agree with Rich and others who lament the sad fact that Palestinian believers get caught in the crossfire (because the IDF can't distinguish between Christian Palestinians and their non-Christian counterparts), but it's one of those harsh realities of life in the Middle East right now. I don't know anyone who likes it--but hey, that's the way it is.

Has anyone at World Vision issued a retraction and/or apology for citing incorrect figures in the Washington Post article? Mr. Oren issued a rebuttal and provided the more realistic numbers.

The organization I work for has an office near Jerusalem (Mevaseret Tzion) and our people travel to and from sensitive areas like Bethlehem and East Jerusalem, especially during Christmas and Easter celebrations, so we have a pretty good sense of how difficult it is for believers (both Palestinian and Israeli) to move around in those places. But to claim that only 2,000-3,000 permits were issued for Easter this year when the actual figure was more like 20,000 was clearly irresponsible. This sort of accusation being hurled at the Israelis can only serve to exacerbate an already delicate security situation.

Rich was right when he said that just because you have an entry permit doesn't automatically provide you with freedom of movement once you're inside Israel. There are still security checkpoints and other barriers to navigate. I have been through these checkpoints myself--many times, in fact. It's part of the security strategy--and whether we like it or not, it has been effective.

I'm sure Rich knows that many messianic believers in Israel sympathize with the plight of their Palestinian brothers and sisters. We ourselves have staff members who travel into the West Bank to do ministry. At Christmas time, one of our ladies hand-carries bags of gifts for Palestinian children across the border. We can't talk about these efforts publicly (at least, not in any detail) because the lives of the Palestinians we're helping could be in jeopardy. Hamas and the PA have both killed many of their own people whom they have suspected of being "collaborators" with the enemy (Israel).

So let's not lay the blame here at the feet of the Israelis. If Palestinian believers don't enjoy freedom of movement (and in many instances, they truly don't), it's the fault of Palestinian terrorists--not the Israelis. 

In his article, Rich said he prays for the removal of "all restrictions on the freedom to worship for the Christians of the Holy Land." However, I respectfully submit that the real issue here is not freedom of worship but freedom of movement. And freedom of movement must be restricted for all the reasons I've already mentioned. Bottom line: it saves lives.

Anyone who spends any amount of time in Israel and who knows the Israeli people knows full well that they have no interest whatsoever in restricting anyone's freedom of worship. That's what the militant Muslims do--but not the Israelis. Many Christians in Saudi Arabia, for instance, have to meet in secret. This is not the case in Israel, however. There are messianic congregations, as well as traditional churches, all over the country. I'm sure Rich knows this.

Let's not presume to second-guess security measures that have proven to be wonderfully effective in saving innocent lives. It has not only saved Jewish lives, but also Palestinian lives. Many Palestinian families aren't losing their children to the cause of "martyrdom" thanks to the Israeli security measures.

I would imagine that Palestinian mom whose 20 year old son was intercepted near Nablus last week is breathing a sigh of relief right about now!

I apologize for the length of this email, Victoria, but I am deeply troubled by what I perceive as a broadening, pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel consensus within evangelicalism. We have come to expect anti-Israelism from liberal, left-leaning groups like the NCC and WCC, of course--but now it's happening in our own evangelical camp.

Things began to heat up in 2007, when Hank Hanegraaff published The Apocalypse Code(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers), in which he accused the Israelis of "ethnic cleansing" (see pp. 163-69), among other things. Surprisingly, he made no effort to sound even the least bit objective about it. Not once did he mention the slaughter of innocent Jewish Israelis at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. All he did was list his grievances against the Israelis.

So here was the evangelical "Bible answer man," with the help of a major Christian publisher, spouting anti-Israel propaganda! For many of us, it was a wake-up call.

Since then, things have only gotten worse. More and more evangelical voices are being raised against Israel, portraying the Israelis as the villains in the Middle East and the Palestinians as hapless victims. Christian Zionists like yours truly are vilified as puppets of an apartheid regime.

This is the grid through which I view Rich's article about Easter and the Palestinian Christians. A war is being waged within evangelicalism over Israel and the Middle East. Sooner or later, our evangelical leaders are going to have to come down on one side or the other. Too many of us, up to now, have been wishy-washy and non-commital on the Middle East.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Protestant preacher who was executed by the Nazis near the end of World War 2, famously explained the peril of remaining aloof in times like these:

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

Not long ago, I told a preacher friend that he wouldn't be able to straddle the fence much longer on issues concerning the Middle East. He would eventually have to come down on one side or the other. He grinned sheepishly and said, "Let's just say I'm on the Lord's side." I suppose he thought that pious little retort would shut me up. When I said, "Oh, really? Well, then, please tell me what that looks like on the ground in Israel," he stuttered around and acted as though he didn't really know what to say.

To me, here's what being on the Lord's side looks like in practical terms:

1. We recognize the unqualified right of the State of Israel to exist and to defend its citizens from Palestinian terrorism and any other form of hostile aggression. All nations have this right--and that includes Israel.
2. We allow the Israeli authorities--given their proven track record of success--to handle their own security arrangements without being dictated to by outsiders.
3. We continue to be sensitive to the plight of our Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters. We know their lives are difficult and the needs are great. Many of them are fully aware that they are suffering more because of the actions and views of their own leaders than they are because of the Israelis. But we all know that does little to alleviate their suffering. So we pray, hope, and help as we are able.
4. We share the Good News of Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah with all the people of Israel and the Middle East--whether they are Arab, Palestinian, Persian, or Jewish. Ultimately, the only peace plan that will succeed is the one that will change hearts. Only Sar Shalom (our coming Prince of Peace) can do that. Meanwhile, we keep on praying for the shalom of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6).

My wife and I are praying and deliberating about whether to continue our support of World Vision--but for now, please combine those two accounts as you suggested.

Victoria, please don't take any of this personally. I know that you are only doing your job. I apologize for the fact that I had a lot to get off my chest in this email. I'll be blogging about this, too.

Thank you for your kind assistance--and for your patience.

Regards,

Dr. Gary Hedrick
CJF Ministries
611 Broadway
San Antonio, TX 78215
www.cjfm.org/blog

On Apr 12, 2012, at 11:25 AM, World Vision wrote:

Dear Dr. and Mrs. Hedrick,

Thank you for contacting World Vision regarding the April 4, 2012, article "A dark Easter for Palestinian Christians" written by Rich Stearns, president of World Vision U.S. We are thankful for the opportunity to respond to your inquiry.

Rich Stearns spoke out on this issue because World Vision has a long relationship with the Palestinian Church. We believe peace between Palestinians and Israelis is possible and network with many Israelis who feel the same --- we are not anti-Israel. Rich hoped that his piece would advance a dialogue to provide greater access for worship, and we are encouraged by Ambassador Oren's commitment to that same end by his government.

With due respect to Ambassador Oren, Rich's piece was not "libelous," as he had no malicious intent toward the Israeli people. We recognize Israel's need for security, but believe it is not incompatible with Palestinian access to Holy Sites.

World Vision is committed to building a better world for all children of the region, both Palestinian and Israeli. We appreciate your commitment to the peoples of the land and join with you in prayers for peace.

Dr. and Mrs. Hedrick, we would also like to share with you that our records show two accounts under your name. With your permission, we will be glad to merge these accounts within 7 to 10 business days. Please reply with history to this email or call a Donor Service Representative at the number below.

NOTE: When replying to this email to give us permission to merge the accounts under your name, please be sure to include the name(s), primary address, phone number, and email address exactly as they should appear on your account.

If you already have or would like online account access, please specify the email address you wish to use for your sign-in name.

We truly appreciate your concerns, and we are grateful for your faithful partnership with World Vision since May 2008. We are glad to have you come alongside us as we strive to build a better world for children!

If we may be of further assistance, please reply with history to this email or call a Donor Service Representative toll free at 1.888.511.6432. Our hours of operation are Monday through Friday 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. and Saturday 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Pacific Time.

Blessings,
Victoria
Donor Contact Services
World Vision U.S.


World Vision | Building a better world for children | www.worldvision.org/home
World Vision is a Christian humanitarian organization dedicated to working with children, families, and their communities worldwide to reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and injustice.

Original Message Follows: ------------------------

Dear Friends at World Vision,

My wife and I have supported World Vision for years.

However, I'd like to know if Rich really made the comments that are quoted in this article:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-us-envoy-slams-libelous-article-on-palestinian-christian-access-to-jerusalem/

Many thanks in advance for your timely response to my inquiry.

Regards,

Dr Gary Hedrick (Marcia)