Many Egyptians these days shed no tears over the demise of the Muslim Brotherhood, seeing in them an unhealthy and manipulative merging of religion and politics. But religion, politics, and manipulation are known the world over. First take a look at this excerpt from Christianity Today, describing two evangelical leaders during the Jimmy Carter presidency:
Balmer also describes Jerry Falwell’s mendacity and Billy Graham’s duplicity as they worked to bring Carter’s presidency to an end. Falwell brazenly lied in his report that Carter had told a group of evangelical leaders he supported gay rights. Eleven days after telling the Reagan campaign that he wanted to “help short of [a] public endorsement,” Graham reassured a Carter liaison that he was “staying out of it.”
I hate to think these descriptions are true, but perhaps this only shows we are quick to believe the worst of the other while doubting it for our own kind. The anecdotes are from a new biography of Carter, so I can only assume, perhaps wrongly, it was well researched.
But no research is needed to see the all-but manipulations of Bishop Boula of the Orthodox Church. Even here my ‘all-but’ exposes my will to disbelieve, but how can you doubt when his efforts are admitted? Here is a translation of his recent comments on Egyptian television, translated by Middle East Monitor (video included):
Bishop Paula (Boula): How do I estimate it? Let me tell you what I would do for instance in Tanta. I come to each one of the churches. Let’s assume that in this particular church there are six priests. We divide it into six squares and each priest is put in charge of one square and that would be the region he is responsible for. We tell the priest: father, you are in charge of this region. How many homes are there within it? I want to appoint one young man for each group of thirty homes to prompt them and make sure to bring out those who have not yet come out. The young man who is in charge of the thirty houses would submit a report about each of these houses, one by one. In this way, we would know who went out and who did not. We call the father in charge by phone and he goes and knocks on the door. So, we have extremely accurate information about the ratio of those who went out and those who did not.
Presenter: I am saying this to you but it might be possible that those who hear us might take to mean something else. Was the Church playing politics?
Bishop Paula: No, no. Look. The Church is playing patriotism.
Presenter: It plays patriotism?
Bishop Paula: It has a patriotic role. The Church has always been a patriotic church. And in this particular time it should have a strong patriotic role. The patriotic role is the prompting role. And to be telling the truth, it includes, if possible, unifying opinions through persuasion as to who is the best (candidate).
If not for that last statement, the ‘all-but’ could remain. It is, perhaps, patriotic to stimulate and even ensure the voting of the flock. Christians should be good citizens; the church should help them know how to engage their civic responsibility.
But could he not help himself? Did the Christian in him demand he reveal the full truth? Did his pro-Sisi/anti-Muslim Brotherhood giddiness expose it? Is he just proud of himself and the monumental task he organized? Bishop Boula invited me into a meeting once during parliamentary elections in 2011. I saw his efforts then, but did not notice any ‘persuasion’. Of course, that was just one session.
But, oh, this is fuel for the Egyptian political fire, and it is well deserved. Pope Tawadros, do you have a comment given your insistence of church neutrality? I wrote you an ‘all-but’ interpretation in that article. Has Bishop Boula made me a liar?
A worthy question also for the Muslim Brotherhood, for Jerry Falwell, and for Billy Graham. May God honor you all for the good you sought within your best interpretations. May he hold you all accountable for the means by which you pursued it.
And may be be merciful to us all for our many manipulations, both great and small. We self-justify far too easily.
Rev. Stephen Sizer, a renowned expert on Christian Zionism delivered a series of lectures in Egypt at Cairo University, the Anglican Cathedral, and other venues. This article is a summary of his presentation delivered on February 15, 2012.
According to Sizer, Christian Zionism is the view that the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and thus deserving of our moral and political support.
Sizer opened with a brief history of Zionism, tracing its first political sponsor to Napoleon, who wished to wrest Jewish banking favor away from the British Empire in their struggle for supremacy. Britain eventually emerged triumphant, and then engaged Germany in the lead up to World War I, as both sides solicited Jewish favor in exchange for their support for a return of Jews to Palestine. The Belfour Declaration in 1917 was the pinnacle of Britain’s promise, set in the context of many geopolitical maneuvers with both Jews and Arabs.
The Christian element of Zionism received a great boost with the election of President Jimmy Carter in 1976, who believed the state of Israel represented the fulfillment of prophecy. During this time Rev. Jerry Falwell emerged as the leading advocate of Christian Zionism, and promised 70 million evangelical Christian votes for supporters of the cause.
After his death in 2007, Rev. John Hagee received his mantle, promising 50 million evangelical Christians would stand side-by-side with the 5 million Jews of Israel. Today, Sizer estimates 25% of US Christians identify with Christian Zionism, though this contrasts with only 5% of Christians worldwide.
Sizer identified five primary theological underpinnings of Christian Zionism, including:
Jews are to be restored to Greater Israel
Jerusalem is the eternal Jewish capital
The Jewish Temple is to be rebuilt
Antipathy towards Arabs and Islam
There will be a war of Armageddon
Theology, he noted, drives behavior. Sizer then illustrated how Zionist Christians:
Contribute money to support settlements and help Jews emigrate to Israel from Russia and elsewhere
Lobby the US government to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem
Support the Orthodox in their effort to rebuild the Temple
Oppose the peace process as it compromises ownership of the land
View politics through the lens of a coming war between Russia, China, Arabs, and Europe against Israel
The consequence of Christian Zionism, Sizer noted, was the destruction of the church in the Middle East. Historic Arab Christian communities are being squeezed by the competing powers of Zionism and Islamism, finding no place for themselves. Many are immigrating.
Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey warned that the holy sites of the Middle East could be transformed into a Christian theme park, in which the only Christian witness is carried by tourists and pilgrims.
Sizer closed his remarks by quoting from the 2006 Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism, signed by the heads of the Latin, Syrian Orthodox, Anglican, and Evangelical Lutheran churches in Jerusalem. Highlights include:
We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.
We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption, and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ. Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from the ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!
We call upon Christians in churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom are suffering as victims of occupation and militarism.
We affirm that Israelis and Palestinians are capable of living together within peace, justice and security.
We are committed to non-violent resistance as the most effective means to end the illegal occupation in order to attain a just and lasting peace.
With urgency we warn that Christian Zionism and its alliances are justifying colonization, apartheid and empire-building.
During a question and answer session afterwards, Sizer explained how Israel would like to have three separate achievements, but can only have two. These include:
A Jewish State
The Occupied Territories
Israel can succeed in being a democratic Jewish state if it gives up the territories to an independent Palestine.
Greater Israel can succeed in being a democracy should it incorporate the inhabitants of Palestine as full citizens with equal rights, if it gives up its Jewish nature.
Or, Israel can succeed (?) in being a Jewish colonial state, but only at the expense of giving up its democratic nature.
Sizer’s presentation was warmly received by the majority of attendees, many of whom were less than familiar with this largely American religious phenomenon. The only issue taken with Sizer was his acceptance of the term, Christian Zionism. Some angrily rejected the coupling as an oxymoron – Zionism is not Christian at all.
I wince when issues of the world are reduced to banking and Jewish conspiracies. Sizer does not take this bait and run with it, but much of anti-Zionist discourse does. Still, ‘follow the money’ is a truth worth reflecting upon, but surely historic world capital has been available via other than the Jewish ‘cabal’, no matter how disproportionate Jewish influence might be relative to their population.
Yet from my superficial studies of world Judaism, I believe that for most of modern history the majority of Jews have been anti-Zionist themselves. Before the creation of Israel they waited for the advent of the Messiah to restore their fortunes to Jerusalem. Furthermore, many deemed Zionist efforts to be counter-productive to the social necessity of proving themselves loyal citizens to the nations in which they lived. Why then would Jewish bankers wish to swing worldwide sentiment to creation of a Jewish state? Far more research than I have done is necessary to determine the validity of the question, but however it is sliced, Zionism is a peculiar entity.
As per Christian Zionism, I wish to recognize first that few evangelicals I am familiar with would use this phrase as a self-appellation. It is not a movement, however much it is a sizeable theological-political sentiment. Moreover, its sympathizers are good Christians, contra the disbelief of some who commented at the close of the lecture. Money given to support poor Jews in Russia may be manipulated politically, but it comes from a generous heart to help ‘the least of these’, as Jesus commanded.
One omission from this particular lecture of Sizer was an evaluation of the Biblical sources. Why is Christian Zionism faulty interpretation? Its proponents certainly name chapter and verse to demonstrate the grand plan of God.
Sizer’s website contains resources to address this question, as do the writings of Colin Chapman. I do not wish to enter into this discussion here, but it will suffice to say I recognize many of the principles of Christian Zionism, or of dispensationalism, its theological underpinning, as worthy Biblical options for interpretation. Christians disagree over interpretation all the time – what is important is that a common reference point judge between disputants. Both sides appeal to scripture, and therefore must not be excluded as the enemy, even if in error.
For me, the definition of Christian Zionism as given by Sizer contains the key to its essential error. Modern political Israel may or may not be the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Yet even if it is, this should not translate into the necessity of moral and political support.
Rather, it is the principles outlined in the Jerusalem Declaration that must guide Christian evaluation of Israel, as of all nations, including their own. Do the policies of a state nurture or hinder the flowering of love, justice, and reconciliation? Careful reading of the news is necessary, but in many cases the government of Israel violates these values. When it does, Christians must object.
The Bible maintains that it was God’s anointed hand and the fulfillment of prophesy which smashed the Jewish state via the scepter of wicked Babylon in 586 BC, and then again by the Roman Empire in 70 AD. That this was God’s design did not call on the people to approve, only not to stand in the way. On the contrary, in the case of Babylon God promises he will judge its rulers for their injustice and oppression.
Is God moving history toward a final confrontation between the world and Israel during which Jesus will return and inaugurate his kingdom? Perhaps. Those who scoff would do well to view events through this particular interpretive lens and gauge the odd correspondence. Why else would such an unimportant piece of land command attention of the whole world?
Yet even if this vision is true, God will hold Israel’s leaders to account for their conduct – not based on political exigency, but on divine righteousness.
He will hold Christian Zionists to account all the same. He will, in fact, judge the world.
As Coptic Orthodox repeat incessantly in prayer, ‘According to your mercy, oh God, and not according to our sins.’
note: Please click here for a five minute video of Stephen Sizer giving an interview to a member of the Arab media after his presentation. Due to sound quality the questions were edited out, but should be clear enough from his answers given, which are presented in full.