Jump to Blog Sidebar & Archives
About a year ago (April 2011), Israel's Channel 1 did a three-part report on the activities of the anti-missionary organization Yad L'Achim. The programs are available on YouTube and they're well worth the time it takes to watch them. (Each segment is roughly ten minutes in length.) It's all in Hebrew, of course, but with the English subtitles it's very easy to follow the discussions and interviews.
Since the horrible attack on a messianic family in Ariel, Israel, in 2008 (click here for background info), the spotlight of media attention in Israel has been riveted on Yad L'Achim, an extremist anti-missionary hate group. It's encouraging that the Israeli mainstream media—at long last—is calling attention to the activities of such extremist groups. They are a small minority, thankfully; however, as we saw in the Ami Ortiz case (mentioned above), they're capable of inflicting pain and suffering that is hugely disproportionate to their small numbers.
As you watch, note that there are still extremists who, even on TV, out in the open, defend the actions of Yad L'Achim. In their way of thinking, the Messianics are essentially "asking for it" because they're trying to lure unsuspecting Jewish people away from their faith and "convert" them to Christianity. That's how they see it. To them, it's a war.
Actually, if the Messianics were trying to "convert" Jewish people to some form of non-Jewish, institutionalized Christendom (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or any one of a number of others), Yad L'Achim's frothing at the mouth might be slightly more comprehensible.
But they're not. Not even close. Most of the Messianic believers in Israel are simple, down-to-earth Jewish Messiah-followers. They're not part of any "Christian" denomination or church. In Hebrew, they are Meshichi (Messiah-followers) rather than Notzri (denominational "Christians").
Are some of them supported by churches (whether in North America or elsewhere)? Yes, of course—some of them receive support from Christians outside of Israel. What's wrong with that? The United Jewish Appeal has received significant support (to the tune of millions of dollars) from US churches (including, perhaps most notably, Pastor Hagee's Cornerstone Church here in Texas)—and we don't hear anyone complaining about that, do we?
But I digress. Getting back to the topic at hand, here are the three installments of the report from Israel's Channel 1:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIPrhXREm3w&feature=relmfu
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEPpkzxYYRA&feature=relmfu
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMyblyb3EOY&feature=relmfu
YNET News just published an op-ed piece entitled "Bethlehem's Last Christians?"
In our blog here, we've been talking about how the anti-Israel faction in the North American evangelical community is growing. Sadly, even large, evangelical organizations like World Vision have signed on.
Many American evangelicals, including our friends at World Vision, are experiencing what I call "misdirected indignation."
They see the tragic plight of the Palestinian Christians and they are, understandably, vexed and angry. So they glance around and look for someone to blame. Since many of these indignant American believers know little about the history of the conflict or its localized dynamics, or (in some cases) because they're listening to the wrong people on the ground in the West Bank or Gaza, the State of Israel seems like the best candidate for the role of villain. That's got to be it, they say to themselves—the Israelis are at fault. They're the reason for all of the Palestinian suffering! That's their reasoning.
In reality, however, the blame should be laid squarely at the feet of the Palestinian Authority (formerly known as the PLO), Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Palestinian hate groups. They have victimized and terrorized Palestinian Christians in horrific ways, as the YNET article points out so graphically and accurately. This is information that, for one reason or another, is not widely disseminated.
People who have the Israelis in their crosshairs are experiencing the phenomenon of misdirected indignation. They are blaming the wrong people.
You can read the YNET piece here: "Bethlehem's Last Christians?"
Well, like they say, "When it rains, it pours!"
This and last week, it's been one story after another about how the anti-Israel consensus is building here in North America—even among evangelical Christians.
Today we turn our attention away from the evangelicals (for now) and toward the secular media.
Last Sunday, on CBS's popular "60 Minutes" newsmagazine-format TV show, veteran journalist Bob Simon did a recognizably slanted segment on the Middle East entitled "Christians of the Holy Land." You can watch it by clicking here.
Bob begins by reporting the exit of large numbers of Christians from the Palestinian territories. He fails to mention, however, that many of them fled when Arafat put a price on their heads in the 1990s. In those days, we had many friends in the West Bank, most of whom we knew in connection with our tour ministry. There were two Palestinian brothers in Bethlehem, for instance, who owned and operated several tourist shops and an olive-wood factory. They were accused of being "collaborators" with Israel (maybe because they did business with people like us who operate tours to Israel) and we heard later that they had fled to North Africa with their families to escape Arafat's wrath.
Their sudden departure saddened us greatly. My wife and I had been guests in the elder brother's home. Marcia had purchased some of their products. They took a liking to her and shipped her a lovely Nativity set which we received after we got back home to Texas. She corresponded with them for a time, but we lost track of them when they fled the country.
Many Palestinian Christians, like these brothers we knew, have had to flee persecution at the hands of the Palestinian Authority—especially those who were evangelical believers. Keep in mind that terms like "Palestinian Christian" or "Palestinian Church" are catch-all phrases that include Catholic, Coptic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Syrian, and Ethiopian groups. They represent traditional, works-based religious systems that evangelicals find largely incompatible with the true Gospel of the grace of God.
However, there are some evangelical believers among the Palestinians, just as there are numerous Arab congregations on the Israeli side of the border (particularly in the Galilee). These are our brothers and sisters in Yeshua, of course, so we are always sensitive to their needs and hardships. How can we do any less?
To his credit, Bob Simon does point out that the Israeli wall and checkpoints were a response to Palestinian terrorism and that they have been effective (he says terrorist attacks are down 90% since the wall was erected); however, much of the rest of what he says in the "60 Minutes" segment is clearly and unapologetically spun in favor of the Palestinians. There's even a favorable mention of the controversial, anti-Israel Kairos document that he says won the endorsement of 13 liberal religious denominations (true, by the way).
Media bias against Israel is nothing new—and it's ironic, in a way, since so many Jewish folks work in the news and entertainment industries. In fact, Bob himself is Jewish. Irony upon irony, but not all that unusual! Some of the most shrill anti-Israel voices come from the American Jewish community. Go figure!
Here's a thorough and illuminating analysis of the 60 Minutes segment from a blog in the Jerusalem Post: click here
If you'd like to let CBS know that you're not pleased with the "Christians of the Holy Land" segment, click here.
Wow, talk about timing.
We were just talking the other day about World Vision's criticism of Israeli "obstructions" in Gaza and the West Bank. (By "obstructions," they mean Israeli security barriers that restrict the entrance of Palestinians into Israel, as well as their movements once they've gained entry.) Rich's op-ed piece in the Washington Post wasn't overtly anti-Israel, as I mentioned earlier, but it had a very definite pro-Palestinian spin on it.
It's the same, old, time-worn yarn—the Israelis are the big, bad bullies who take advantage of the poor, disadvantaged Palestinians.
They should take down the barriers. Ease the security measures. And of course, tear down that horrible wall.
israelis, bad guys; Palestinians, good guys. That's the gist of it.
Of course, this kind of talk is nothing new. Bishop Desmond Tutu and other liberation theology religionists have been spouting this rubbish for decades. Liberal, mainline NCC and WCC denominations tend to take this line. Some of them are quite outspoken about it, like the United Methodists, who are currently in the process of divesting themselves of any financial investments in the State of Israel.
Again, this isn't anything that's new. It's old hat.
What is new, however, is that this anti-Israel rhetoric is beginning to emanate from certain sectors of the evangelical camp. It's being articulated in various forms by organizations like World Vision and others who are supported mainly by evangelicals in the US and Canada.
Virtually everyone (including us) agrees that the Palestinians are a poor, downtrodden, and disadvantaged people. With the exception of a small and affluent ruling class, Palestinians are clearly economically disadvantaged. Many of them are unemployed. They have few opportunities to better themselves through education or vocational training. They and their families often live in filth and squalor.
A subset of Palestinian society is the Palestinian Christians, who suffer along with their Muslim and secular counterparts. Again, we recognize this—and we empathize with the plight of our Palestinian brothers and sisters. We help them when we can (and I explained in an earlier post why we can't disclose many details about this aspect of our work).
I don't know anyone who doesn't agree that the Palestinian people suffer greatly in the Middle East. They've been a persecuted minority for decades (for instance, the Syrians murdered thousands of them outright in Hama back in 1982—a horrific bloodbath known as "the Hama Massacre"). Where people disagree is on the issue of who is to blame for their suffering. We say the blame should be laid squarely at the feet of the Palestinians themselves (specifically, their leadership) and the rest of the Arab world. Our opponents, on the other hand, say the Israelis are to blame.
This, too, is nothing new. Jewish scapegoating is as old as the hills. The Jewish people were blamed for Germany's economic ills after World War 1. They were blamed for Russia's problems under the Czars. They were even blamed for the Black Plague during the Middle Ages. If anything bad happens, just blame the Jews!
So this was our topic earlier this week—and just this morning, here's what landed in our "In" box: (click here)
Thanks to our friend Gev at the Rosh Pina Project in London for calling this to our attention.
The Tablet article is entitled "Christians for Palestine." The subtitle is "A vocal majority of evangelical Christians are zealous supporters of Israel. But a growing movement seeks to align them with the Palestinian cause."
This is precisely what we've been talking about. It is a "growing movement," indeed.
It's time to wake up, folks!
Most of us have heard people—sometimes even Christians—say, "What's all the fuss over the Land of Israel? After all, it's just a chunk of real estate."
This is a gross misconception. The geographical Land of Israel is in many ways central to the message of the Bible—including the NT.
Dr John Monson is one of Michael Hedrick's professors at Trinity Seminary in Deerfield, Illinois. Here's a link to a video of a lecture where Dr Monson does a masterful job of explaining what he calls "physical theology," which (in his way of thinking) forms a sort of nexus between geographical, textual, and theological ways of viewing the Bible and its message.
Link: click here
It will be an hour of your time well spent. Dr Monson is not an entertainer, like some speakers—but the info just pours out of him like a refreshing river. Note at around 36:30 of the presentation where he points out that the Abrahamic promise began to be fulfilled at almost exactly the same geographic point where the promise was given to Abraham in the first place (that is, the fulfillment when Joshua first led the new generation of Israelites into Canaan). With little tidbits like this, he masterfully shows how the Land itself is an integral component of the Bible's message to mankind.
Israel is NOT "just a chunk of Middle Eastern real estate." That's one important thing we would like you to take away from this.
Note at 39:00 the footage of the little statue of Baal that would NOT stand upright when it was being displayed on an Israeli television station—in Monson's words, "fascinating"!
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:
- 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.
- We allow the Israeli authorities--given their proven track record of success--to handle their own security arrangements without being dictated to by outsiders.
- 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.
- 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)
You've probably noticed the stories in the news media since last year about the pastor in Iran who faces execution because he converted from Islam to Christianity.
One encouraging development in this case is that our friend Jay Sekulow is now on it. You may recall that Jay took our case in Georgia all the way to the Georgia Supreme Court back in 1992-93. (Authorities at Stone Mountain State Park had expelled one of our missionaries for passing out tracts on public property. We took the position that it was a violation of his right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Jay handled all of the legal work in that landmark case and didn't charge us a dime—and we have never forgotten it.) Now he and his son Jordan are on the firing line fighting for Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani. You can read the story on the ACLJ website: click here.
If I were in Pastor Nadarkhani's predicament right now, I can't think of anyone I'd rather have going to bat for me than Jay, Jordan, and the ACLJ.
Here's a summary of the case published in Christianity Today last year: click here.
To read an unofficial translation of the ruling of Iran's supreme court (released by Fox News) click here. The reason this document is important is that the Iranians are now claiming that they are executing the pastor for the crime of rape, not merely apostasy from Islam. 
However, the actual supreme court document says nothing about rape. What it does say is this: "[The pastor] must repent his Christian faith if this is the case. No research has been done to prove this, if it can be proved that he was a practicing Muslim as an adult and has not repented, the execution will be carried out."
When I was a youngster, my dad once caught me in a lie. He said, "Son, if you just always tell the truth, you won't have to try to remember what you've said." That was good advice! The Iranians would do well to live by that simple rule. One of their problems is that they tell so many lies, at times, they can't keep them straight. In this case, they can't decide precisely why they want to kill this evangelical pastor. They're saying one thing publicly, but the actual court documents tell another story.
Secretary of State Clinton was a little slow, at first, to condemn this ridiculous kangaroo trial in Iran; however, she and her people at State have finally stepped up to the plate. Last month (December 2011), Ms. Clinton called for the immediate and unconditional release of Pastor Nadarkhani. To read CBN's story about the State Department's action, click here.
I say, better late than never!
So the question remains: will Pastor Nadarkhani be executed by hanging, like they're threatening to do? Most of our friends in that part of the world are telling us they don't think the Iranians will actually carry out the execution. It would be a public relations nightmare for the mullahs. It would put them on the same level as the Islamists who beheaded Daniel Pearl, a Jewish journalist, in Pakistan in 2002 with cameras rolling.
On the other hand, the Iranians aren't exactly known for acting or speaking rationally. In some ways, it seems like they feed on negative publicity. They love being hated and detested by the "corrupt west." Furthermore, the only people whose opinions they value are fanatical crazies like themselves who would consider the murderers of Daniel Pearl heroes. So who, really, knows what the Iranian mullahs might do?
Let's pray that the the Lord Yeshua the Messiah will use the testimony of that faithful preacher to touch the hearts of the Iranian people. May they come to realize that the Jewish Messiah is indeed "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Pray, too, for strength for Brother Yousef's family during these trying times and for his soon and safe return to them.
That's the title of an interesting entry recently on the Christianity Today blog (click here to read it).
The long and short of it is that some progressive (that's the more congenial term for "liberal" these days) evangelical theologians are reinterpreting the Creation account in Genesis to say that Adam and Eve were fictional characters. They were symbols utilized by the biblical writer to teach us spiritual truths. That's the gist of it.
Adam and Eve did not exist because (they say) the first humans emerged (on the evolutionary scale) as a community of at least 10,000 or so individuals—not merely one man and one woman created by God. The genetic evidence (they claim) proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the human race could not possibly have begun with a single couple (Adam and Eve).
They are undeterred by the references in the NT to a singular individual named Adam who stood as the federal head of the human race (e.g., Rom. 5:14) or by the Pauline parallelism in other passages (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:22-45) clearly showing that Paul believed Adam was the first human. Paul was simply mistaken, these purveyors of theistic evolution claim.
I am not a scientist, so I'm not going to get drawn into a technical debate about the pros and cons of these genetic theories and claims. One thing I have learned over the years is that it's wise to keep silent about topics we know little or nothing about—although I readily admit that I still suffer occasional lapses in this regard. But this isn't going to be one of those times.
There are solid Christians who are also capable, credentialed scientists, so I'll let them duke it out with the opposition. They don't need my help.
Also, let's not jump all over Christianity Today. They're just reporting it. It would be a misdirection of our indignation if we killed the messenger here. It's actually good that CT reports stuff like this. Many believers have their own churches and their own circle of believing friends and acquaintances, but they know relatively little about anything beyond that immediate circle and personal experience. Even on the Internet, we tend to visit sites that are within our personal comfort zone (that is, they're compatible with our own beliefs). But we need to be aware of what's going on out there in the wider Christian world.
If you're interested in reading a defense of the traditional view, I recommend this monograph ("Adam and Eve as Historical People and Why It Matters") by Professor John Collins of Covenant Theological Seminary: (click here). Jack's perspective is particularly helpful because of his understanding of science (he received his undergrad training at MIT) and theology (he holds an M.Div. as well as a Ph.D. in Hebrew linguistics).
Keep the faith, my friend. Scientific theories and speculation change almost daily, but God's Word never changes. Remember, we're standing on the Rock:
"In God [is] my salvation and my glory; The rock of my strength, [And] my refuge, [is] in God" (Psalm 62:7).
I'm afraid I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to politics these days.
Like some of you, I have pretty much decided that the whole US political system has been corrupted to the point where it is beyond repair. Even if a sincere and patriotic statesman (that is, someone who's guided by true convictions as contrasted with today's politicians, who are generally guided by political expediency) came along, I don't see how he or she could survive in the current political milieu. The system would (please forgive the forthcoming crude expression) grind him up and spit him out. The whole process has become a "game," in almost every sense of that word. In this game of politics, you have to employ compromise and deception in order to win. These things are not only tolerated, but they are expected and encouraged. It's just how the system works.
My wife is from the great State of Illinois. She grew up in Metamora, in Woodford County, in the middle of the state. As a little girl, she could ride her bike a few blocks to the town square where Abraham Lincoln once debated Senator Stephen Douglas (the old pavilion is still there, across from the historic courthouse). Sadly, however, the Lincoln legacy of honor and justice has long since gone by the wayside. Corruption has become a way of life in Illinois politics. Over the past hundred years or so, dozens of state and local officials have been convicted of corruption and/or racketeering. In fact, former Illinois governor George Ryan is in prison now and with the recent conviction of former governor Rod Blagojevich on corruption charges, it could be the first time in recent memory that two former governors of a state have been in prison at the same time!
So I think I have good reason to be cynical about politics.
Nonetheless, once in a while someone in the political arena says something that is truly courageous, provocative, and cuts through the politically correct baloney that's routinely served up by the establishment.
This was the case recently when Newt Gingrich, who is campaigning for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, referred to the Palestinians as an "invented people." If you haven't yet seen the story, click here.
At first, there was a firestorm of protest from pro-Palestinian factions and the mainstream media played it up in a big way. Then, within a matter of a few days, all of the ruckus just went away. I wonder if it was because the Palestinian sympathizers came to realize that all of the attention could work to their detriment. After all, if people started digging for the facts, and looking into the issue for themselves, they would discover that Mr. Gingrich was right!
Some people think that today's Palestinians are the same people who inhabited Palestina in Roman times—but that's a myth. The name "Palestine" actually derives from the Philistines, one of the indigenous Canaanite tribes who originally settled in the area (Ex. 15:14, Isa. 14:29-31, Joel 3:4, Psalm 60:8, 87:4, and 108:9). Others were the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites (Deut. 7:1). The Jebusites were the original inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Yasser Arafat, the patron saint of the modern Palestinian movement, was not a Canaanite. He was an Arab who was born in Egypt. His father was an Egyptian grocery merchant. His mother's family supposedly had roots in Jerusalem, but even that has been disputed. In any case, she was definitely not a Jebusite.
The people we know today as "Palestinians" are predominantly an Arab sub-culture of outcasts. Even the other Arab nations don't want them. Egypt has fortified its border with the Gaza Strip because they don't want the Palestinians entering Egypt. To the east, Jordan has secured its border with the West Bank for the same reason. Syria in the north has notoriously persecuted the Palestinians, even wiping out an entire Palestinian village (at Hama) in 1982 and slaughtering hundreds of its inhabitants in one of the 20th century's most tragic examples of attempted genocide (click here for The Syrian Human Rights Committee's report on the Hama massacre).
Corporately, the so-called "Palestinians" are a lawless, unpredictable, and ungovernable people. They not only kill Israelis indiscriminately, but they also kill each other. (Several Palestinian factions are at war with each other.) They don't honor agreements (which is why it's so hard to negotiate with them) and they suffer from an insatiable, genocidal hatred for the Jewish people. They teach their children that Jewish people are sub-human and that murdering someone who's Jewish guarantees great rewards in the afterlife.
I say "corporately," though, because there are individual exceptions. Not all Palestinians are bad people. Some, in fact, are precious believers in Yeshua who suffer greatly for their faith. Our messianic believers in Israel have relationships with a good number of these folks. These courageous Palestinian believers barely survive in the midst of horrible living conditions and they have to be constantly on guard because if the Islamists accuse them of being "sympathizers" with Israel, they can be killed (this has actually happened, by the way). We pray for them and help them when we can (we can't say any more than that due to security concerns).
Mr. Gingrich, a former college professor with a Ph.D. from Tulane, is known for making seemingly outrageous statements in an effort to stimulate new thinking on difficult and controversial issues; however, in this instance, it's really not so outrageous. When someone says a Palestinian is a person whose claim on Israel is older than that of the Jewish people, it's an invented and concocted definition for the term "Palestinian."
Thanks for the reality check, Professor!
CNN, Fox News, the Associated Press, and other major news sources are confirming today that Moammar Gadhafi, the brutal dictator who ruled Libya for four decades, has been killed by rebel forces near his hometown of Sirte: click here for the CNN story
And no one is mourning his passing—at least, not publicly.
Ronald Reagan is reputedly the one who dubbed Gadhafi "the mad dog of the Middle East" back in the 1980s. Since then, the reclusive and eccentric Gadhafi had become even more of a mad dog, making President Reagan's observation not only apt, but maybe even semi-prophetic.
So what does one do with a mad dog? He puts it down. It's the safest and most humane thing to do. And that's what NATO, in collusion with Libyan rebel forces, has done.
The question now is, who or what will replace Gadhafi? Other oppressive Arab regimes have fallen this year, most notably the one in Egypt, and we're asking the same question about them, too.
This wave of change that has swept over the Middle East and Northern Africa (known popularly as "Arab Spring") has been welcomed by just about everyone around the world; however, people are still wondering what the ultimate outcome will be. Will countries like Egypt and Libya become true democracies? Or will even more oppressive Islamist regimes (like the one in Iran) finally seize control?
Speculation about Libya's future started months ago, long before Gadhafi's demise. Israel National News (Arutz Sheva) ran this op-ed piece in September: "Libya's Ideological Precipice—Islamist or Secular?" (click here to view)
The problem in most of these countries is that they are a patchwork of many smaller Arab tribes and clans. The strong, iron fist of a central government was required to hold these diverse factions together. Under a more soft-line, democratic regime, countries like Libya might fall into tribal civil war and eventually find themselves divided into two or more smaller nations or provinces.
As for what lies ahead—I don't have a crystal ball, but I do have a Bible. The ancient prophets provided interesting clues about the future of the Arab lands. Prophetically, Libya is destined to come under the Anti-messiah's sphere of influence during the coming Tribulation (Dan. 11:41-45). The current political stirrings throughout the Arab world could easily be a prelude to the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy. Whether or not this is so, only time will tell.
We'll keep you posted as further developments warrant.
