Tag Archives: israel

Front page of the Messianic Times

Posted on by
7

Here it is:

To read this article fully, subscribe to the Messianic Times.

Here is an excerpt from my article – emphasis mine:

[Christ at the Checkpoint organiser] Sami Awad  aligned with the 2010 Gaza flotilla, which carried weapons to Hamas. This is the “nonviolence” of Sami Awad.

[Before the conference began], individual Messianic leaders planning to attend hinted at plans to challenge CATC extremism. This, however, proved difficult once on site. In the end, British scholar Richard Harvey, in his presentation, expressed the possible option of replacing Israel with a state known as “IsraPalestine.”

Somewhat theatrically, Evan Thomas, a prominent leader of Musalaha (an Arab Christian organization with ties to some Messianic leaders), compared himself to Paul of Tarsus, who dared to eat with Gentiles. Thomas likened Messianic critics to Simon Peter, who refused to break bread with them. Thomas told his listeners that internal “community pressure” against CatC required repentance. The only substantial challenge to CatC came from Wayne Hilsden, the Messianic leader of King of Kings congregation in Jerusalem, who handled the controversy on an esoteric and theological level. The opportunity to publicly warn CatC speakers against admiring anti-Semitic Islamist terrorists was largely missed.

What followed was farcical. CatC released a Replacement Theology-driven manifesto mentioning the Messianic speakers by name, implying the conference had agreed to the document. The Messianics saw it for proofreading before its completion, which gave opportunity to dupe them into being seen as in agreement. Sami Awad claimed that Messianic CatC participants had full opportunity to edit  and provide input into the declaration.

While at first this appeared unbelievable, in a joint statement those Messianic participants and delegates admitted that “some” of them did see it and suggest grammatical changes. Additionally, they referenced discussions at CatC to assist the administration of Gaza with nonviolent tactics. In layman’s terms, CatC held sessions discussing how they could help Hamas. The Messianic contingent did not challenge this publicly.

How does CATC2012 respond to PA treatment of Palestinian Christians?

Posted on by
20

Dexter Van Zile reported this week, that a week after PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad addressed CATC, the PA informed Palestinian church leader Stephen Khoury that his church “lacked the authority to function”, as a religious institution in the PA.

The church can still gather to pray, for now, but the PA’s decision conveyed on Saturday will have a real impact on the members of First Baptist, which endured numerous bomb attacks during the First Intifada.

“They said that our legitimacy as a church from a governmental point of view is not approved,” said Khoury’s son, Steven, who serves as an assistant pastor at First Baptist. “They said they will not recognize any legal paper work from our church. That includes birth certificates, wedding certificates and death certificates. Children are not even considered to be legitimate if they don’t have recognized paperwork.”

The irony, Steven said, is that the PA’s announcement comes right after the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference.

Many people have picked up on this irony, as the PA’s Prime Minister Salam Fayyad himself addressed CATC, just days before this decision came to light. Bear in mind, CATC was organised by Bethlehem Bible College, which is an evangelical Bible college. Indeed, last month Eastern Orthodox Christians on a web forum belittled CATC for being evangelical and not Orthodox, and therefore not truly representing Palestinian Christianity.

In response, CATC organisers Porter Speakman and Munther Isaac have written an article to the concerns raised about CATC and the timing of the decision about Khoury’s church.

Speakman and Isaac write:

Unlike traditional churches like the Greek Orthodox and Catholics, Evangelical churches in the Palestinian Territories are not officially recognized and therefore things like marriage documents are not considered legitimate by government authorities. They have the freedom to worship, but are not “official.”

They continue:

For the last few years, there have been many discussions between Evangelical church leaders, including those who organized and spoke at the Christ at the Checkpoint, and officials from the PA.

If the PA and CATC leadership have been in discussion, it has not born any fruit. The PA does not consider Palestinian evangelical Christians to be legitimate at all.

However, it appears that both parties consciously decided to oppose pro-Zionist theology in public.

This would explain why Salam Fayyad was not publicly challenged at all by anyone at CATC, as he gave his address to the conference.

This is Munther Isaac’s introduction to Fayyad:

“Palestinian Christians have always enjoyed the support of the Palestinian leaders. We worship with freedom and exercise our rights like all Palestinians. To emphasise this, we are deeply honoured to have the support of prime minsiter of the Palestinian Authority, Dr Salam Fayyad. Since 2007, Dr Salam has worked so hard to prepare Palestine for statehood, and his efforts in building the Palestinian economy and institutions have been described as ‘absolutely first-class, professional, courageous and intelligent’. Above all, Dr Fayyad is a man of vision, and his vision is one of prosperity and peace for the Palestinian people. And it is only fitting that his name in Arabic literally means ‘among them peace’. It is my privilege and honour to invite to us here, to the stage to speak to us, Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Dr Salam Fayyad.

So Munther Isaac does not mention the PA discrimination against evangelical Christians, despite being a Palestinian evangelical at a Palestinian evangelical conference.

Consequentially, the attitude of the CATC towards Fayyad was deferential:

Speakman and Isaac further write in their article, about Palestinian churches:

The recognition does not depend entirely on the PA, and the input of the churches already recognized is as equally important. In addition, the congregational nature of the Evangelical churches and the absence of a recognized hierarchy complicate things.

This seems odd. If the recognition does not depend entirely on the PA, then who else does it depend on? Surely it does depend on the PA. It appears as if Speakman and Isaac are trying to play down the responsibilty of the PA, in the issue of church recognition. Here is their rationalisation, for inviting Salam Fayyad to CATC:

This is why efforts by Christ at the Checkpoint to highlight the Evangelical Palestinian church are so important. Having Palestinian Prime Minister Dr. Salam Fayyad come for the second time in as many conferences to speak and to see first hand what the Bethlehem Bible College and local churches are doing helps, not hinders, the churches efforts for recognition. In addition, the issue of seeking recognition for Evangelical churches in Palestine and in Israel was openly discussed during the conference.

It ought to say something, though, that Salam Fayyad has already been invited to CATC back in 2010, he then met with CATC organisers and Palestinian evangelicals, and nothing changed regarding recognition of evangelical churches. Two years later, Fayyad again is invited, and no progress has been made on the issue.

One of the stated CATC conference goals in English was to “[e]mpower and encourage the Palestinian church”. In order to do so, CATC will need to speak up for the rights of Palestinian Christians.

If they can link this to criticism of the Israeli government, then they will do so. However, if speaking up for the rights of Palestinian evangelical believers requires open criticism of the PA and of Salam Fayyad’s leadership, then will CATC provide this criticism?

Criticising the PA would be awkward for CATC’s image. Doing so may mean that others will accuse them of being Zionists. Sooner or later, CATC will have to decide which is more important – their anti-Zionist theology and image, or their care for the plight of the Palestinian church.

Wayne Hilsden challenges CATC2012 statement

Posted on by
3

Wayne Hilsden comments, somewhat cryptically:

I have received confirmation that what Sami Awad said in fact true. He will be able to explain that himself. But, as I stated previously, I was not aware that the organizers would publish any official statements and I was not personally involved in giving any input.

Compare this to the Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 statement:

 The Statement and Manifesto were presented to the conference participants on the last day but were only agreed on and endorsed by the Conference Organizers.

According to Hilsden, there was no statement on the last day shown to participants.

According to CATC, there was a statement on the last day shown to participants.

They can’t both be right.

Also, how can Sami Awad’s statement about Messianic input into the manifesto be true, if Wayne H was one of the Messianic leaders but did not edit or contribute to the manifesto? I doubt Richard Harvey did either, so how can this be true?

There are many contradictory posts, tweets and press releases coming from Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 speakers and organisers. What are we supposed to think?

Sami Awad claims that Messianic Jews were consulted about CATC2012 manifesto

Posted on by
20
Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 organiser Sami Awad

Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 organiser Sami Awad

Earlier today, we carried the news that Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 issued a conference statement without consulting the delegation of Messianic leaders it invited, yet still named these Messianics in their conference “manifesto”.

Here is the ending of the manifesto, as it still appears on Stephen Sizer’s blog (although not for much longer probably):

Now this section of the manifesto, reads on the CATC website:

The Statement and Manifesto were presented to the conference participants on the last day but were only agreed on and endorsed by the Conference Organizers.

Conference Organizers: John Angle, Alex Awad, Bishara Awad, Sami Awad, Steve Haas, Munther Isaac, Yohanna Katanacho, Manfred Kohl, Salim Munayer, Jack Sara, Stephen Sizer

This news was picked up by Israel Today, and then by the Jnews Reader. Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 organiser Sami Awad reacted to this news on Twitter.

Here is a series of tweets that followed:

Sami Awad claims that the Messianic leaders were consulted about the manifesto, and had “full freedom to edit and input” into the manifesto.

However, according to the information on the CATC website, only the organisers – including Sami Awad himself “agreed on” the conference manifesto.

Which version of events is correct?

Sami Awad’s version, or the official CATC version?

Furthermore, how is anyone supposed to take the CATC manifesto seriously, if the organisers themselves do not appear to agree upon the sequence of events that led to the publication of the manifesto?

How do Messianic CATC participants Wayne Hilsden, Evan Thomas and Richard Harvey feel about the way they are being portrayed by the conference organisers?

These are questions which deserve urgent attention, clarifications and explanations, because the information coming out of CATC2012 participants and organisers appears to be conflicting, confusing and contradictory.

Messianic Jewish speaker for CATC 2012: “I oppose all forms of anti-Semitism”

Posted on by
19

This is hugely significant.

Richard Harvey, a key Messianic Jewish participant in Christ at the Checkpoint 2012, has told the print edition of Israel Today:

My participation doesn’t mean that I agree with all the aims of the conference or the views of the conference organizers. In fact, as I will be saying in my paper, I believe in God’s continuing election of the Jewish people, which includes the Land promises, and oppose all forms of anti-Judaism, anti-Semitism and supersessionism . I am going to meet my Arab brothers and sisters in Christ to talk, listen and pray with them, to seek to model the reconciliation between enemies and the unity that we have in the Gospel.

When the CATC papers are made public following the conference, it will be very straightforward to assess the extent, to which Richard Harvey does assert his opposition to “all forms of anti-Judaism, anti-Semitism and supersessionism.”

It will also be straightforward to see how clear his challenge is, to the Checkpoint 2012 organisers and participants who are responsible for pushing theological antisemitism.

Of course, there are many forms of antisemitism to oppose at Christ at the Checkpoint 2012.

There is Shane Claiborne, who thinks “the cross lost” when Bonhoeffer tried to kill Hitler. CATC 2012 awarded its blogging prize to Keith Giles, who compares Israel with Pharisees who just persecute Christians. CATC 2012 allies with Dr Jim West, who admires Nazi theologian Kittel.

CATC is being organised by Alex Awad, who has previously shared a platform with terrorist reps and a Holocaust denier, and Rev Stephen Sizer, whose writings have recently been scrutinised and critiqued for anti-Jewish racism by Rev Nick Howard in the British magazine Standpoint.

Richard Harvey will have to share a platform with Ben White, who has previously stated:

I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are.

It seems to me that Richard Harvey has given himself an impossible task – not least because Checkpoint 2012 organiser Sizer appears to see Richard Harvey as a heretic due to his Zionism.

So it is difficult to see how Dr Harvey can oppose “all forms of anti-Semitism” at Checkpoint 2012, without tackling the antisemitism of Christ at the Checkpoint itself.

Israel slams award for pastor exposed by the Rosh Pina Project

Posted on by
2

In October 2011, RPP broke the story of Mitri Raheb’s racist theory about Jewish blood, espoused during a paper which he delivered at Christ at the Checkpoint. Since then, our research was highlighted by the Hudson Institute and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

The state of Israel has now seen fit to comment on Pastor Raheb’s conduct.

Now in February 2012, the Jerusalem Post reports:

BERLIN – Israeli Embassy representatives expressed dismay with the decision of a German media NGO and former German president Roman Herzog to honor the Bethlehem- based Rev. Mitri Raheb, because of what they term his efforts to delegitimize the Jewish state’s existence.

Israeli diplomatic sources in Berlin told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that “Raheb is connected to a document – ‘Cairo Palestine’ – that defines Israel as an Apartheid state and calls for a boycott of Israel. It is an extremist and racist document which does not contribute to reconciliation and peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. We regret that one of its authors is receiving acknowledgment in Germany.”

Last week, the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor and the Simon Wiesenthal Center sharply criticized The Media Control, the German NGO responsible for the award, and Herzog’s decision to deliver a keynote speech in Raheb’s honor in late February.

According to the Wiesenthal Center, “in speeches given to various religious symposia and church summits (including the infamous 2004 US Presbyterian assembly that approved a boycott and divestment campaign against Israel), Raheb promoted a ‘Palestinian theology’ that purports that Jews are not the Chosen People and therefore have no right to the Holy Land.”

German-Israeli friendship groups urged Herzog, who served as president of Germany from 1994-1999, to reconsider his participation at the event honoring Raheb. In an early February letter from the German-Israeli friendship society (or DIG) in Freiburg, its representative Andrea Lauser noted that Herzog’s life motto was “Truth and Clarity,” and expressed hope “that you follow this motto in connection with Dr. Raheb.”

DIG Freiburg said that Raheb had made “racist statements about Israel and Jews” and that his anti-Israel comments contradicted the message of the German media prize for “Alternatives to Violence and Radicalization.” As such, the letter stated, it made no sense that Raheb had been chosen for the award.

The letter also cited Herzog’s speech at the Bergen- Belsen extermination camp in Poland in 1995, in which he said the “history of failure began not after the [Nazis’] seizure of power in 1933,” but long before. He also said in that speech that the “danger of totalitarianism is always present – and not only in Germany, but in the entire world” – a statement that DIG said showed Raheb’s views represented a fascist outlook.

The Rhein-Neckar/Mannheim DIG appears to be the first group to have called for Herzog to pull the plug on his participation because of Raheb’s stance on Israel. In a late January letter to the former president, the group described Raheb as “a prominent Palestinian Christian who delegitimizes the Jewish people and fights the existence of the State of Israel.”

Post e-mails and telephone calls to Herzog were not immediately returned.

Herzog has so far refused to issue responses to the growing German and international criticism of his decision to honor Raheb.

The Media Control group, which awarded the prize to Raheb because his “acts are a symbol of humanity,” defended the award in an e-mail to the Post.

“The German Media prize [has worked] 20 years for neutrality, balance and peace. And that is why [former prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin and [President] Shimon Peres were honored,” wrote Karlheinz Kögel, the founder of the Medien prize. He added that he has “generously supported the Peres Center for Peace.”

“In this year, we will make sure that the [award ceremony] event supports the coming peace process,” he continued. “The prize ceremony will not be misused for one-sided statements.”

What is the goal of Christ at the Checkpoint 2012?

Posted on by
6

In English:

Create a platform for serious engagement with Christian Zionism and an open forum for ongoing dialogue between all positions within the Evangelical theological spectrum.

In Arabic:

خلق البيئة المناسبة للحوار مع كافة المسيحيين وتقديم بديل من كلمة الله المقدسة يتحدى الفكر الصهيوني المسيحي للفكر الصهيوني المسيحي.

 

To create an environment for dialogue with all Christians and to provide an alternative to the Christian Zionist thought, as the Holy Word of God challenges the Christian Zionist thought.

Are you surprised?

RPP’s further challenge to Darrell Bock

Posted on by
Reply

Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, Darrell Bock replies to this post:

Actually I did reply to her. I noted that I came in for one day to speak at the Conference and argue for Israel’s right to the land at the conference and take questions. So I did not hear the other addresses other than one by Lynn Hybels. The implication I did not reply and respond is simply wrong and misrepresents what took place.

So basically, Dr Bock did not challenge Pastor Raheb’s racism, because he was not present. Fine.

Here’s a further challenge then, to Dr Bock:

In the light of Viola Larson’s information about Mitri Raheb’s racist speech, and knowing what you know now about support for terrorism, racism and antisemitism at Christ at the Checkpoint, would you attend another one of their conferences?

German Christians protest Christ at the Checkpoint speaker’s racist theology

Posted on by
5

Mitri Raheb – pushed racist theology at CATC 2010

The Stonegate Institute reports:

Since 1992, the German concern Media Control has awarded an annual prize, known as “Deutscher Medienpreis.” According to the company website, it is given “to a person who had outstanding importance in the media during the past year.” Remarkably, the list of yearly awardees has mostly lived up to that ambitious description, including many illustrious and deserving personalities. Until this year, that is.

Four awardees were named for the 2011 prize in a press announcement on January 13, 2012. While three seem to be meritorious enough, the fourth is a Palestinian pastor who has devoted all his theological energies to delegitimizing the State of Israel. No, he does not just oppose “the occupation.” He maintains that Israel is a foreign European body that lacks his own DNA connection to the people of the Bible. Moreover, Media Control has lined up a former President of Germany, Prof. Roman Herzog, to come and praise him.

Part of the problem may be that for this year, the twentieth anniversary of the prize, Media Control decided to abandon its previous winning formula. According to that press announcement: “For the jubilee of the Media Prize, this tradition is being broken in order to honor personalities who are quiet peacemakers and whose activity takes place without great media attention.” In other words, people whom we do not know much about and who may not have done anything of note recently.

Lutheran Pastor Mitri Raheb of Bethlehem, however, is by no means an unknown character in Germany. He has published books there and he has given countless speeches in churches and church-related institutions. On February 19 next, he is scheduled to preach in the Berliner Dom, the principal Protestant church in Berlin, and to deliver a keynote lecture in the afternoon at another major church, the French Dom. Very handy for the award ceremony of the Media Prize on February 24.

To give a taste of his theology, we shall give an extract from a speech that he held in Bethlehem in March 2010. For nearly two years, anyone in the world with a computer, including the people of Media Control, has been able to read this speech and even to listen to it.

Said Mitri Raheb: “Actually, Israel represents Rome of the Bible, not the people of the land. And this is not only because I’m a Palestinian. I’m sure if we were to do a DNA test between David, who was a Bethlehemite, and Jesus, born in Bethlehem, and Mitri, born just across the street from where Jesus was born, I’m sure the DNA will show that there is a trace. While, if you put King David, Jesus and Netanyahu, you will get nothing, because Netanyahu comes from an East European tribe who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages.”

And he continued in this vein. I have written about Raheb’s speech in another article, which is available in German. The article was even published in Germany last December by the official “Circle of Friends” in Baden that promotes good relations between German Protestants and the Jewish people (Freundeskreis Kirche und Israel in Baden e.V.). Media Control and its prize-awarding jury should have known about this major aspect of Raheb. Yet his citation for the prize, according to the press announcement, is for being a “quiet peacemaker” who “stands for understanding between Christian, Muslims and Jews” and is “the alternative to violence and radicalization.”

Let us paraphrase this citation in words that do not disguise the reality. Raheb is a noisy denier of the very legitimacy of the State of Israel, which he seeks to undermine not by physical violence but by a radical theology that awakes enthusiasm among Christians, Muslims and even a handful of Jews who long to see Israel vanish from the map.

Whereas the Nazis spoke of “race” and “blood,” Raheb is modern enough to speak of “DNA,” but what is the difference? It is not just that for the Nazis Jews did not belong in Germany because their blood was non-Aryan, whereas for Raheb they do not belong anywhere near him because he thinks their DNA is European. The difference is also that Prof. Roman Herzog represents the new Germany that arose from the ruins of Nazism, yet he is slated to come along on February 24 and praise such a person. A former German president will be praising the man who delegitimizes an elected prime minister for having the wrong DNA.

Prof. Herzog has been placed in an embarrassing position by the decision of Media Control’s jury. Since he is doubtless asked to deliver such speeches on many occasions, one cannot expect him personally to research everyone he is supposed to talk about. But the embarrassment goes further. He is also the patron of the Roman Herzog Institute in Munich, created by friends who cherish his ideals. Praise of DNA-theologian Raheb will not bring much honor to that institute nor, for that matter, to Media Control itself.

German-speaking Christians have already begun writing to Prof. Herzog to warn him about what he has got into. We await the response of international Jewish organizations.

Church’s apathy on antisemitism

Posted on by
Reply

Nick Howard writes in the Jewish Chronicle about Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 organiser, Anglican vicar Stephen Sizer:

In the past fortnight the police and the FA have convinced many that they are facing up to racism with the seriousness it deserves. Yet at the same time the Church of England has given the opposite impression.

In October Reverend Stephen Sizer posted a link on his Facebook page to an antisemitic site called “The Ugly Truth” which featured images of blood-sucking Jewish vampires and Nazi-style caricatures of Jewish men. Three months later, Rev Sizer took down the link.

The Diocese of Guildford claimed, on behalf of Bishop Christopher Hill – Rev Sizer’s local bishop – that the reverend withdrew the link “when the nature of other articles on that site was drawn to his attention”. The particular article that he’d recommended hadn’t itself been antisemitic, so a potentially damaging “racist vicar” story became one of a “naïve vicar”. But the bishop’s statement was untrue.

I emailed Bishop Hill on November 16, expressing my concern, and pointing out that in 2010 a bishop was suspended for inappropriate use of Facebook (posting unpleasant remarks about the royal wedding). Bishop Hill replied that week, promising to speak to Rev Sizer “about his use of Facebook”. But six weeks passed before the link was removed. It was only taken down then because the JC was looking into the story.

Sizer has a track record of such behaviour

 

The Church comes out looking blithely unconcerned about racism. Perhaps Bishop Hill forgot to inform Rev Sizer that his Facebook page was a portal to a Jew-hating website, showing how little he cares about antisemitism. Perhaps he did inform Rev Sizer, but was ignored, in which case the reverend would be confirmed as an antisemite and the bishop would again show himself to be apathetic about racism.

Rev Sizer has a long track record of arguably antisemitic behaviour, so the Church could hardly have been encouraged to give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s described IDF members as “Herod’s soldiers operating in Bethlehem today” (King Herod ordered his troops to kill all the baby boys in and around Bethlehem, in the hope of murdering Christ). He’s promoted boycotts of McDonalds, Coca-Cola, L’Oréal and Nestlé on the basis that they “channel their profits to the Zionist agenda”. He has alleged Israeli complicity in 9/11, and argued that Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians mean “the Holocaust has been perpetuated over the past 40 or 50 years”. His associates include Palestinian activist Raed Salah; Zahra Mostafavi, the Ayatollah Khomeini’s daughter; and Israel Shamir, who warns of “Jewish mind control on a world scale”.

The MacPherson report into Stephen Lawrence’s death defined institutional racism as “the collective failure of an organisation” regarding “colour, culture, or ethnic origin”. The Diocese of Guildford has fallen foul of that.

It’s worth noting the Church’s utterly unethical handling of the media. To stifle a negative story, the Diocese of Guildford issued a deliberately misleading statement. Even if the bishop forgot to speak to Rev Sizer in November, he was certainly informed about the matter on December 27, when an article about it was posted on the blog “Harry’s Place”. Yet Sizer only removed the link a week later, under duress. Not only does this episode raise the question of why the Church wants to protect a man like Rev Sizer, it raises the issue of how the Diocese of Guildford can justify intentionally misleading the media.

One would hope that the Church would set a moral example to organisations like the Met and the FA. Sadly, it seems it’s the other way round.