No single historical event past,present and distressingly future, illuminates the guilt and complicity of western nations more succinctly than the 7 decade tragedy in Israel / Palestine. It was conceived by Zionists, abetted by Christian apologists, facilitated by the British in 1922, and then enshrined by the United Nations in 1948. Since then it's fair to say that the decisions that were made there, have polarized every thinking person's view of the subsequent events, producing personal convictions both for and against the two parties in Palestine. Unfortunately, the protestant church temporal, a diverse denominational creature, has played a significant and unfortunate role. John Nelson Darby the father of Dispensationalism could not have foreseen the popularity of his eschatological views nor the departure from Biblical principles that has resulted from undiscerning loyalties to the state of Israel.
There are three support members for Israel. Zionism, the political ideology of Israel, has historically been supported by Zionists, who are both Jews and Gentiles and who promote "exceptionalism" among themselves, the rights of the state of Israel, and the return of the Jews to the land of Palestine. Zionism draws emotional support and empathy from the historic persecution of the Jews and specifically the Holocaust events of WWII.
The second support member for Israel is the military industrial complex, a group of arms companies, the American military, and the American Government who benefit by proxy from the state of Israel's militant survival posture in the region.
The third support member and the subject of this paper, is the worldwide evangelical Christian church, specifically those that have embraced Dispensationalism also known as Christian Zionists.(hereafter CZ's) They believe that the state of Israel must exist in the land as a prerequisite to the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Worldwide, they outnumber the Zionists 6 to 1.
So we ask why it is necessary to raise this introspection of Christendom ? The short answer is that the loyalties of the CZ's facilitate the geopolitical goals of Zionism which are decidedly Non-Christian and destructive to the Palestinian people. Put another way, CZ's, with end times expectations unwittingly and through willful ignorance, support the Zionist apartheid policies which ultimately lead to genocide among the Palestinians.
How did it come about ?
John Nelson Darby, a 19th century theologian, gets the credit for Dispensationalism or Futurism which is the primary plank in the CZ platform . His ideas concerning the end times were novel when they were introduced, but as the 20th century dawned, they became legitimized in the issuance of what has to be considered the first partisan version of the Scriptures -- the Schofield Reference Bible. Schofield did not amend or change the text of the authorized King James Version, but he did publish it with extensive notes in the margins which offered his interpretation as truth. Juxtaposing one's opinions on the meaning next to orthodox and inerrant Holy Writ is but a short distance from changing Holy Writ . A separate commentary would be a more humble and reverent approach.
It's fair to say that his example has become justification for many to issue their own reference bibles juxtaposing their ideas with the same truth presumptions.
To what extent Schofield was influenced by the rise of Zionism under Theodor Herzl is not known, but the 1895 Zionist conference in Basel Switzerland is close enough in time to have been a factor.
The very idea of the Jews returning to Palestine must have fired the imagination of Christians who were looking forward to the 20th century believing the Lord would return for the church at the 6000 year mark of recorded history. The ambitions of the Zionists to re-establish the nation of Israel, therefore gave substance to the Darby theories, garnering support from Christians, despite the fact that the essential tenets of Zionism, even at the beginning, were political in nature and carried disturbing racial implications for populated Palestine .
Further, in 1913, the US Congress passed legislation that resulted in the establishment of the Federal Reserve, a cabal of private bankers who took over the issuance of the money supply of the United States. In 1917, the circumstances surrounding the financing of WWI, brought about what turned out to be a perpetual, graduated income tax in both Canada and the United States. At the same time and with the proceeds of taxation to finance it, governments began to play a much larger role in shaping the social fabric of the nation.
The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century saw a huge shift in population from the farms to the cities where industry was located. In the19th century, without direct taxation, governments ignored many pressing needs in western societies which resulted from increased population density and overcrowding. The Christian churches were therefore the first responders founding orphanages, hospitals and myriads of other services to needy people. Much of the social infrastructure then was historically the prophetic work of the churches. With the establishment of income tax, the political establishment had the financial means to take over the infrastructure that the church had created by removing the surpluses from the pockets of the church members as tax, and then refunding a portion though a charitable tax number offered to the churches under Societies Act legislation. The rate of tax could easily be manipulated by the political process to control the churches and their members and also to begin universal social programs that would bring votes and create a culture of dependency.
Unfortunately, the press -- the means of promoting the rationale for creating a graduated income tax, was all in the hands of the establishment. Individual pastors who saw the danger of government control where either part of religious organizations who dictated policy, or they were outnumbered by church members who were unable to grasp the significance of the state's actions to control their religious freedom. And control they did. Gradually, through societies act legislation, Christian churches were reduced to religious clubs serving their membership. Taxation and political initiative in the name of universal access gradually removed almost all of the prophetic ministries that had been established in the 19th century. In fact today, prophetic activity that is deemed political in nature is forbidden by the terms of the societies act and churches that even speak to the issues may lose their tax exemption status, suffer property tax, or even lose their churches to government agencies who rightfully claim that untaxed capital built the church .
Essentially then, the separation of church and state, once deemed an essential to protect the conscience of the nation, is now Non-existent. The process has been so gradual that few have recognized that the teeth of the church have been pulled. The Lord Jesus Christ said that he did not come to bring peace on the earth but a sword. Before universal taxation, the church used the sword of conscience to prophetically establish institutions and movements that shamed the heartless and the careless. Today, having lost the initiative in areas of service, and political discernment, the church is faced with far greater problems . The first is simply recognizing the loss, and the second is re-establishing it's calling and mission in a pagan society that has had years of license to pursue its evil plans.
Theological seminaries also are in no way immune from control. Harvard, Princeton and Yale started out as Bible schools. They advocated separation of church and the state so that the church would always remain a wholly separate and impartial body of persons that would hold and employ a Christian worldview. Yet, over time, they succumbed to the persuasion that their role should be exclusively theological in nature that they should refrain from any interference in the politics of the nation. This is fundamentally contrary to the Biblical admonition to be salt and light in a dark world. After preaching the Gospel of spiritual liberty through repentance and faith, the church ( the members) are bound to apply the result in ethics to a darkened world.
But the church voluntarily allowed the state to restructure society both socially and financially so the prophetic role would be effectively eliminated. How many ministers of protestant churches will publicly make known their private convictions, on monetary policy, abortion, political corruption, sexual preference, the doctrine of American exceptionalism, racial profiling, 9/11 truth, police brutality, and in the area of foreign policy, the crimes of politicians through the use of raw military power? Do they make their business to know and have convictions on these matters ? I contend they do not, for they have been indoctrinated to believe that first, the state has the authority over how far the boundaries of the spiritual realm can influence members, and second, that their role is internal to what they believe is the spiritual health of their church organization .
But is their any spiritual health to be found in a congregation, when the world desperately needs the wisdom of the "mind of Christ" and the leadership of the church absolves itself of any responsibility because of ill-conceived political restrictions ?
I contend therefore that the prophetic role of the church has been purged from their thinking academically and then practically. In today's world the leadership of the church has replaced the prophetic with social religious functions marketed to the community in a climate of increasing competition for attendance. That is not to say that the gospel of repentance and faith is not preached. Thankfully in every age, the Lord calls the Elect no matter what the spiritual health of the temporal church. However the factors that I have mentioned creates an immediate climate of confusion for a convert, who, being denied a Cross to carry because of societies act restrictions, is forced to be immediately complicit in the crimes that society commits around him.
Many Christians get use to it and sear their conscience to be free of any opinion which would necessarily imply that they should act in opposition to the trend. "We're not going to go there or we won't discuss that" is proffered when someone raises potentially contentious issues that require spiritual discernment to determine relevant action. The prohibition is then justified in order that there be no division. The church body unites generally around the doctrine taught from Scripture, but prohibit any discussion on how it might be applied to the world. In view of this, it is a mystery to me how they understand the work of the prophets of the Old Testament who clearly condemned the evil works of the leaders and the people who claimed to love God's law, yet acted in a manner that was clearly contrary. In God's name, the prophets caused division even preferring death rather than disobedience and complicity. In my view, Christians who fence off areas of doctrine and practice to avoid controversy clearly display fear for their own insecure positions. There is no area of faith and practice, that cannot be discussed openly.
It is my view that the leadership of contemporary churches are only vaguely aware of these root causes nor are they cognizant of the downstream problems that result. In their defense, they did not personally assent to the Societies Act; they inherited it. So can this paper do some good ? Can it be a catalyst for change? Once aware of the problem, the clock cannot be rolled back and and the intellect cannot be purged of new information. It is not enough to just fit in with societal restrictions and preach the Gospel without the prospect of unsheathing the sword or shouldering a Cross. In a day that cries out for persons who will confront evil, there must be encouragement to face evil doers as an adversary.
It's reported that there are some 200,000 persons annually who are martyred for their unswerving allegiance to the Gospel. How many of these martyrs suffer because the western church has abrogated its responsibility to apply the ethics of the Gospel to their own societies ? Where are the Christians who will courageously oppose evil policies at their root ?
