Checkpoint Checkup: One Month Later

Checkpoint Checkup: One Month Later
a view from Israel by Hannah Weiss

The Christ at the Checkpoint Conference took place during Purim week (March 5-9). In a courageous move that proved highly controversial, a small contingent from Israel's Messianic community attended, supporting the Conference goal of "an open forum for ongoing dialogue between all positions within the Evangelical theological spectrum." 

Here in Israel and abroad, a vigorous debate went on among Messianic believers about the two twisted legs on which the Conference stood: their “theology of the land,” which transfers the covenantal promise of this land from the Jews to the Palestinians, and denies any scriptural support for the modern return of the Jews back to Israel; and the anti-Israel rhetoric coming from so-called Bible believers.

Pastor Wayne Hilsden, writing a Response in the name of the Israeli believers attending the Conference, said that they hoped “to address in greater depth the serious issues that concern the messianic body, both of a theological nature and existential threats and attacks against the nation of Israel.”

(A Brief Response, http://waynehilsden.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/brief-response-to-christ-at-the-checkpoint-from-messianic-participants/ )

An Objection and Two Proposals

Speaking strictly for myself, I question the appropriateness of bringing that second concern before Palestinian Christians, for the following reasons.

• The Christians don’t control the threats and attacks against Israel. It’s the repressive cabal of murderous thugs who rule them – the Palestinian Authority. And that, by the way, is not my description; it was said to me by Palestinian friends from a village in Samaria, spoken quietly over coffee in our home.
• Palestinian Christians have their hands full dealing with existential threats of their own, stuck between the Islamic supremacists of Hamas and the secular criminals of the PA. We should not lay any additional burden on them by requiring them to also fight for Israel’s survival.

My concern as a Messianic Israeli is that the Palestinian Christians suffer silently under Palestinian abusers. (For that matter, so do many Palestinian Muslims.) Unfortunately, our brethren in faith will not allow us to give them a voice. They will not admit to being under any kind of oppression that cannot be blamed on “the Israeli occupation.” Perhaps as dhimmis they cannot afford to admit it. (More on this later.)

For this reason, I propose that the second twisted leg afflicting CatC is not the anti-Israel rhetoric that most Palestinians recite in order to stay out of trouble with their local thugs. It’s the fact that those who could speak freely – the Western Christians at CatC – refuse to address this painful reality. Instead, the Conference blamed all Palestinian Christian suffering, without exception, on “the Israeli occupation,” and blocked out the truth of Palestinians persecuting Christians as “Zionist propaganda,” the ultimate slur guaranteed to shut down all further discussion.

I also propose that this inability / refusal to talk about Palestinian abuse of Palestinians is encouraged by the first twisted leg – a politicized, contradictory theology. Among its other errors, the CatC-endorsed theology heavily rewrites Zionist history and Israeli society.

(See “Theology of the Land: From a Land of Strife to a Land of Reconciliation” by Dr. Salim Munayer, at: http://www.christatthecheckpoint.com/lectures/Theo.%20of%20the%20Land%20Final-edits.pdf ) 

This fantasized image (a topic for another study) is necessary, because any evidence of Israel “making right moral choices” with its Arab neighbors and residents might imply that G-d is reactivating the original Land covenant with the Jews as they repent – a promise which is in fact spelled out in scripture. Only a picture of absolute, unrepentant Zionist sin can support the teaching that Israel has permanently forfeited G-d’s promise of the Land, in spite of the repentance option that He always provides.  

Premature Assessments

Our community’s arguments focused mostly on whether the Israeli brethren participating in the Conference would be catalysts to replace these distortions with truth – as they desired and hoped – or be used as window dressing to give the distortions respectability. 

As a defense, Conference organizers repeatedly stated that there was room for disagreement on both theology and political conviction, that these were secondary compared to our kinship in the Kingdom, and that the Conference would transcend the disagreements. The wide range of speakers would guarantee that all views would be given due consideration.

The Messianic Israeli participants accepted this reassurance at face value: “We hope and pray that our willingness to accept the invitation to participate in the conference has opened a door for us to strengthen genuine relationships with our Arab brothers and sisters. We trust that in the context of such relationships we will be able to address in greater depth the serious issues that concern the messianic body….” (Brief Response)

It takes time for real attitudes to assert themselves after the euphoria of affirmative words, hugs and audience applause. As Hilsden cautioned the critics, “The impact of the conference has yet to be assessed.”

Can We Assess Now?

There were eyewitness reports of a few quiet relationships in formation, of individuals admitting that they needed to rethink certain points, and even of public apologies for hasty conclusions or unfair generalizations. One month is too short a time to discover if these encounters will go on to spark real shifts toward better truth-telling. But a month is time enough to discover if Christ at the Checkpoint was affected by the broad “evangelical theological spectrum” they were so proud to host and so eager to reconcile with.

Reconciliation begins with enlarging one’s boundaries to grant validity to the other side – not validity AT THE EXPENSE of the truth, but validity BASED ON the truth. We acknowledge whatever truth is found in their perception, which we realize is missing from our own. The sign of a real reconciliation is in public statements issued to our own community that acknowledges the needed changes – otherwise known as “repentance”.

The Israeli Zionist side of the Conference was free with reconciliatory statements to the Messianic community, as noted above. What about the anti-Zionist side? Let’s look to the two Conference legs for signs of “untwisting,” which will show that the other side is internalizing the new parts of truth brought by our side.

Leg One: Palestinian Christian “Theology of the Land”

Summary: For three years there has been no growth, no fine-tuning, and no validation of any alternate theology that takes the “National Restoration of Israel” scriptures at face value… except when such prophecies favor the Palestinian cause. There is no sign that any of this is about to change.

At the previous Conference (2010), the “theology of the land” was presented in detail by Dr. Salim Munayer, a Conference organizer and a well-known figure in Israeli Messianic circles. His written thesis (2009) is referenced above; I also listened to the audio file of his keynote address, during part of which he appeared to be reading from his thesis.

That theology was reaffirmed point by point in the Conference address of Munther Isaac, Vice Academic Dean at Bethlehem Bible College and the 2012 Conference Director. Since his speech is given center stage on the CatC homepage, it can be assumed that he represents the Conference position. (http://www.christatthecheckpoint.com/ )

Isaac was engaging and respectful in addressing his diverse audience. Theology, he emphasized, is not the issue; ethical behavior is. Still, he went on to outline his theology in detail: “G-d has not rejected His people Israel for salvation; but nowhere [in the NT] does it mention their return to the land.” Nor does God need “an ethnic Israel” to fulfill His promises to Abraham. (Isaac and Jacob, who inherited those promises, were omitted.)

Anticipating objections based on the other ¾ of the Bible, he asked, “What about Old Testament passages, like Ezekiel 36?” These promises, he declared, were “conditional,” they were “all spiritual in nature,” and they were “almost always inclusive” of non-Israelites. That last point led to amnesia about the preceding point: that “all is spiritual” in Ezekiel. A very literal integration of Arabs into physical Israel was envisioned, based on Ezek.47:22, along with a rhetorical question: “Why is this not happening?” …as though Israel has no Arab Christian or Muslim citizens.

Isaac then set conditions for evaluating his theology: “By challenging any theological claim of ethnic Israel to the Land, I am not calling for the destruction of Israel…. But please do not force me to accept a theological claim for Israel today as a test of my orthodoxy… or as a precondition to reconciliation.”

This was an unqualified rejection of Wayne Hilsden’s scripturally grounded defense of exactly that kind of “theological claim,” which had already been presented. More important, Isaac declared all theology exempt from orthodoxy tests (validation based on its lineup with biblical truth), and rejected in advance the idea that bypassing these truth-tests might undermine reconciliation among Bible believers.

When it came to granting that exemption to the other side, however, the same leniency was nowhere to be found. Pastor Hilsden's 35-minute presentation, while commended from the platform for its respectful tone, was given a failing grade in biblical truth. The Conference report to the world consigned his view to the oblivion of heresy with a one-sentence rejection: "Any exclusive claim to land of the Bible in the name of God is not in line with the teaching of Scripture." (Manifesto Point No. 5) 

Despite a nod to the Messianic participants “who provided an integral contribution to the dialogue,” their “contribution” was not presented in any Conference statement. Thus, not only was there cheating on the orthodoxy exemption, but the relational equality (partnership) implicit in any genuine reconciliation effort was absent as well.

The Manifesto was monolithic in repeating the organizers’ viewpoint, which remained identical to its pre-Conference formulation and unaffected by the dialog. While opponents were not required to endorse the Manifesto, neither were they invited to draft a manifesto that they could endorse. The Key Quotes page presents the Messianic believers saying only what supported the theology of “the” Manifesto. In short, there was no “reconciliation” portrayed other than the kind that results from mass conversion…which did not happen.

Leg Two: Palestinian Christian Suffering

Summary: While all perceptions of Israelis oppressing Palestinian Christians are to be accepted respectfully without question (per Isaac’s admonition to the Zionists attending the Conference), a similar perception of Muslims oppressing Palestinian Christians is off-limits for discussion. This demonstrates the extent to which a dhimmitude mentality has taken hold of Palestinian Christians living under growing Muslim domination.

For example, a fact-filled article in the Wall Street Journal by Israel’s Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, which was aired at the close of the Conference, mourned the plight of Bethlehem’s Christians under Muslim pressure, and its similarity to events all over the Middle East. The piece was denounced by Isaac for having a “shameful goal: to stereotype Palestinians as radical Muslim persecutors of Christians.” (Munther Isaac’s blog, “Faith Under Occupation, 24/mar/12) No attempt was made to refute Oren’s “stereotype” by identifying Palestinian Muslims who support Christians as equals. It was enough that Christians were “angry and disgusted” by Oren’s claims.

In a longer accusation from "Kairos Palestine" (also promoted on Isaac's blog with a link), Oren's “attribution of [Christians fleeing Bethlehem] to ill-treatment by Palestinian Muslims" was condemned for somehow "marginalizing" the victims. The prosperity of Israel's Christian population was kicked aside with an even weirder response: Since a Zionist like Oren is focusing on this achievement, that “implies the Israeli state’s lack of interest in ensuring the same for Muslims.” The Ambassador ought to "be ashamed of such an evidently distorted attitude."

Inexplicably, “Kairos” dismissed spray-painted Hamas threats on a Bethlehem church by pointing at spray-painted Hebrew threats on Narkis Street Baptist Church – a  predominantly English-speaking, Western expatriate congregation in a Jewish Jerusalem neighborhood – describing it as more evidence of "Palestinian Christians" suffering under "the contemporary reality of occupation." 

Isaac previously used his blog to rebuke Messianic Zionists for “ongoing attacks” as critics of the Conference. (The Fight for Recognition and Against Ideology, 15/mar/12) The cause for offense here was a report (admitted as factual) that PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad had visited Isaac’s brother in faith and Bethlehem neighbor Pastor Naim Khoury, immediately after the CatC Conference, and informed him that his church would no longer be able to register marriages. The timing was noted by critics as “ironic”, which Isaac misinterpreted as assigning blame to the Conference rather than to Fayyad. Likewise, the conclusion that Khoury was a victim of PA government harassment was denounced as a Zionist attempt to “use [Khoury’s] situation for ideological purposes.”

Those who were aware of Khoury’s previous trials – and his affirmation of the theology considered so repulsive by CatC – interpreted this PA move against him as new persecution. To be specific, the inability to register marriages really does put his flock at risk, considering the documented cases of Gaza couples being arrested for walking together in public without being able to produce a marriage certificate for inspection by Palestinian police. (See “Radical Islam in Gaza” by International Crisis Group, p.28, 30, 31 - http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Israel%20Palestine/104%20Radical%20Islam%20in%20Gaza.ashx ) Although Bethlehem is not Gaza, the growing PA cooperation with Hamas could change that situation overnight.

But Isaac, so eloquent at the Conference about the rights of Palestinians to talk about their experience of suffering without challenge, seemed determined to challenge the seriousness of this Palestinian experience. Even if it was true, it was no big deal. Khoury's church has endured 14 firebombings, several murders, and assassination attempts – as of 2009 (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/181500.aspx), but they still have "the freedom to worship." And anyway, remarked Isaac, "evangelicals are not fairing [sic] better in Israel." 

As a reality check on this last claim, I consulted with Charles Kopp, an evangelical pastor living in Israel for more than 45 years. He confirmed that there is no legally defined status for evangelicals, and that registration of Christian marriages is unreasonably convoluted. But talks are underway in Israeli government circles to rectify this. (See “Israel looking to grant Evangelical Christians official status”, http://blog.standforisrael.org/articles/israel-looking-to-grant-evangelical-christians-official-status ) From his own experience, Kopp commented that despite problems caused by certain government offices and ultra-orthodox parties, “there is still much more freedom of worship in Israel than in the PA controlled areas – there's no comparison."

  Theologians, Will You Teach Yourselves?

In the Palestinian "theology of the land" there is a logical progression. G-d’s covenant giving the Jewish people the land of Canaan was conditional on their being obedient: worshiping G-d only, and making the right moral and ethical choices. Under the New Covenant, every people was given a land from G-d by covenant, with the same conditions as those G-d gave to the Jews. The land once belonging to the Jews has now been given by G-d to the Palestinians.

Although no scripture exists for that last point, the integrity of the theology would have been preserved, had the next statement been: The Palestinians can also lose the land if they do not meet the moral and ethical conditions. 

Munayer’s thesis starts in that direction: “[W]e have the responsibilities as the receivers of this gift of land, for our moral and ethical choices and actions affect the land, and there are consequences for our sins.” Later, he applies it personally: “The moral and ethical behavior of the children of Israel had a great impact on the land, and this is no less true for us.” He issues a rebuke to unspecified “Arab nations” and a call for Palestinians on the street to examine their attitudes. But while much is made of the Israelite, Zionist and Israeli leaders who have sinned against the people, the Palestinian leaders are let off scott-free.

History records the abysmal ethical behavior of Palestinian leaders – even toward their own people. Haj Amin al-Husseini, Hitler’s intimate friend who provoked bloodbaths in Palestine from the safety of Damascus; Yasser Arafat, the Cairo-born “Palestinian” who stole billions of aid dollars from the poor and ruthlessly executed opponents; the current PA leadership, whose corruption cost them control of Gaza…. According to CatC theology, these moral failures, which have no equivalents in today’s Israel, should be reaping the same “consequences” as what befell the Jews – loss of their land.

Will the PA repent anytime soon? Where are the Palestinian equivalents of Jacob Avrahami, the Jerusalem mayor’s advisor who visited Narkis Church to condemn the Jewish vandalism? Or a PA official like Dr. Gadi Gevaryahu, who founded the “Banish the Darkness” organization to combat Jewish racism against both Christians and Muslims? While critics of abuses in Israel have their choice of media platforms, the Palestinian Authority puts bullets into the heads of its own prophets – which is why most Bethlehem believers keep their heads down.

A Mirror Image of Blind Zionism

There is a familiar ring to the rhetoric of Checkpoint Conference spokespeople replying to various debate opponents. (Quotes are highlighted with my own emphasis.)

• Isaac’s castigation of Messianic believers concerned for Naim Khoury came down to this politically correct exhortation: "We should encourage and help not only the church in Palestine, but the Palestinian Authority as they continue to seek to build conditions for a free and democratic Palestine."   
• The “Kairos” reply to Ambassador Oren ended with: "We refuse to be pitted against our Palestinian Muslim neighbours and friends; and we refuse to let our collective oppression be manipulated in a way that fragments us, obscures us, or masks the oppression’s true cause, which is the Israeli occupation."
• The Conference Manifesto includes in its final point: "Christians must understand the global context for the rise of extremist Islam."  This implies a taboo against criticizing Islam for encouraging or allowing extremism to flourish, a sentiment noted by an Israeli observer at the Conference (emphasis mine):

The issue of Muslim hostility toward Israel, Jews (and Christians) was addressed at the conference by Colin Chapman, a long time critic of Israel, but it was given short shrift and was done in such a manner so as to hinder any real discussion of the subject.

At one point, Chapman responded rather brusquely to questions about Muslim violence against Christians in the Middle East by saying the questions themselves indicated that the questioners hadn’t put themselves in the shoes of Muslims in the Middle East.

(CAMERA Shapshots – 9/mar/12. Unlike the other Conference sessions, this video was not posted on-line by CatC)

The message is: We stand with the Muslims, whether they deserve it or not, and with the Palestinian powers-that-be. Right or wrong, we support them. And so should you.

Isn't that exactly what the CatC folks were complaining about with regard to Christians who uncritically support Israel, Israeli authorities who wink at Jewish extremism, and Israeli believers who can see no sin in their nation? 

Another Truth Missed by Both Sides

Let me be clear here. I am not castigating our Palestinian brethren in faith, whose unspoken dilemma forces them into dhimmitude survival tactics, in the same way that Christians for centuries have tried to survive Muslim occupiers. (For a concise history, read “The Decline of Eastern Christian Communities in the Modern Middle East,” a lecture delivered at Hebrew University 15 years ago: http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/LectureE2.html .)

I mean the Western Christians like Colin Chapman, whose concealment of the Muslim-Christian realities in the Middle East is unnecessary, and therefore inexcusable.

Meanwhile Israeli Christian Arabs, who enjoy the above-mentioned freedom to criticize whomever they wish, squander their prophetic voices where the risk is nonexistent, rather than where they are desperately needed.

The PA’s promotion of Shari’a law is eroding democratic equality as we speak, and Israeli citizen Munayer (Theology, p.19) considers this deadly clash something to watch “with great interest.” Only someone willfully ignorant of the fate of all Christian communities who ever lived under Shari’a could be so casual about what awaits his brethren trapped as dhimmis in the PA-controlled areas.

CatC participants Chapman, Stephen Sizer, Porter Speakman, Gary Burge and the others from democratic countries – yes, and the Messianic Israeli Jews and Christians too – have even less to lose than Israeli Arabs. They have great freedom of movement and speech, a global audience ready to learn from them, a professed love for the Palestinian Christians, and a golden opportunity to give a voice to their brethren silently struggling under a rapidly worsening stranglehold of Palestinian bullying.

What more do they need, besides a strong enough love of the truth, and a dose of courage?

The organizers of CatC made a public commitment to "stand resolutely against all forms of violence and racism, regardless of the perpetrators." There are those who can make good on this promise with less risk and with greater effect than their besieged Bethlehem partners. Until they do make good on it, where is their credibility to teach benighted Zionists what it means to be “prophetic voices”?

"Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."  

In applying this command to ourselves, one of the “blind Zionist” sins Israel needs to repent from is the self-serving decision we made to sell out our Palestinian neighbors to a gang of thieving murderers imported from Tunis in the 1990s, in exchange for worthless promises from the USA and Europe to make those murderers into peacemakers and nation-builders. We – Israelis and Palestinians alike – have been paying the bitter price for that sin in blood and tears. Can the consequences of that sin be reversed? I honestly don’t know, but repentance will surely bring a merciful response from our God.

When the democratically free spokespeople who organize, promote and speak at CatC are willing to embrace the whole truth, which is somewhere between the blind Zionism they condemn and the blind Palestinism they exhibit, then we can hope for reconciliation.

Until then, Naim Khoury is one Palestinian Christian who would welcome our support as he struggles against suffering and despair. He has taken risks to stand for the truth and is paying a high price for it. We can’t expect him to thank us publicly, because that would brand him as a “Zionist collaborator,” putting his entire family at risk. Let’s just do what’s right and make sure he doesn’t stand alone in the growing darkness of Bethlehem.