Warren Invites Another Baby-Killer to Saddleback
This time it’s Hillary Clinton:
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) will join Rick Warren at his California church this month for an AIDS conference.
A year ago this was offensive. Now, with the likes of Pat Robertson endorsing the baby-killer Giuliani, I guess we were too hard on Pastor Rick. Abortion is a minor problem compared with ingratiating yourself with politically correct causes (in Warren’s case) or compromising your principles to hold onto power to advance Israel’s foreign policy objectives so the Rapture can come sooner (in Robertson’s case).
We are seeing the hollowness of both the social gospel and extreme dispensational premillenialism, as both compromise God’s Law for supposedly “higher” causes. It matters little whether that cause is Marxist wealth redistribution or War for Israel. Both are examples of “doing evil so good may come of it”, something explicitly prohibited in Scripture.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:36 am
I agree. Please don’t think, though, that all “extreme dispensational premillenialists” believe as Pat Robertson does. I personally will not (ever) vote or endorse a candidate who supports abortion. A lot of us are not willing to compromise just to get one “good” thing - whatever it is, whether it’s support for Israel, or even lower taxes. I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that Pat Robertson would support Guliani, but please know there are a lot of us out here who don’t.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
That’s why I used the word “extreme”, to qualify the statement. There are many responsible dispensationalists. “Progressive dispensationalism” is also very encouraging, in that it decouples the eschatology from political support for the state of Israel right now. Whatever God has planned for physical Israel, He doesn’t need our help to get it done.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:55 am
It’s amazing to me, since you mention it, Tom, how many Christians think that the fate of the entire universe is tied to the survival of a manufactured pseudostate that happens to share a common location with the Kingdom of Israel, or at least that the fate of the US is tied to our suicide pact with said pseudostate. As if, if we don’t jump every time Israel says “frog,” God will take the opportunity to remove us from the board.
I really wish these feel-good gospel and prosperity gospel hucksters would stop hiding behind their bibles and find another bunch of rubes, or at least be more honest about their agendas. I know far too many well-meaning (if gullible) Christians who continue to buy these charlatans’ snake oil.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Tom, could you define “Progressive dispensationalism”? I’m not familiar with that term.
And as far as the fate of the US being linked to the fate of Israel, I personally believe that God’s promises to Abraham were literally an “everlasting covenant”. He promised to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel in the context of his covenant with Abraham.
I DON’T think that this means we have to follow Israel as a political leader, but I do think we need to support them in the big picture.
Do you believe that the citizens of Israel are not really Jews? I’m not sure I understand the “pseudostate” comment.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Good article on progressive dispensationalism:
http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp.html
November 29th, 2007 at 10:45 am
The Israel that exists today is a construct of the UN, nee League of Nations. It is not, I think, the Israel that existed under David, Solomon, etc. It is not the union of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. It is a manufactured state, and has only nominal relation to the Israel of the Abrahamic promise.
Paul described the tree of Abraham as the olive tree from which the natural branches (jews) had been cut, and to which the branches of wild olive trees (gentiles) had been grafted. Christians are Israel.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
I completely disagree. When the state of Israel was established, after World War II, thousands of Jewish people from all over the world sacrificed almost everything they had to get to Israel. These Jewish people are direct descendants of the Israelites in the Old Testament. The “everlasting covenant” that God promised Abraham related to a physical, actual place - real land. So, following your argument above, I would have as much “right” to Israeli land as anyone else.
There are two aspects to God’s covenant with Abraham: physical and spiritual. He promised Abraham physical land, a dwelling place. He also promised Abraham a seed, which Galatians told us is Jesus Christ. So I believe there are two fulfillments to His covenant. The spiritual, which you talked about above, is fulfilled through Jesus Christ, where believers are grafted into the vine, especially in light of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus Christ. But the other fulfillment is physical, and I think that will be fulfilled in the future.
Politically, I do support Israel. But I think we should support Israel’s right to defend itself, not necessarily go to war FOR Israel unless it is in our nation’s best interests as well. I don’t know if I’m articulating the different well. IN my opinion, one type of policy would consider Israel a part of America (or vice versa), and treat her interests as our own, and I don’t believe that is beneficial for either country. However, the other point of view sees Israel as an independent state with the right and the responsibility to care for its citizens however it sees fit.
Does that make sense?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
You can’t benefit from the Law of Return because Jews don’t — pretty much by definition — accept that Christ was the fulfillment of Scripture. Messianic Jews are also excluded from the Law of Return, despite the fact that they are Jews.
The problem I have with the current Israel is not with that country, but with the dogged devotion to its interests that far too many Americans have. It’s as if they think God has two standards: in one, you confess your spiritual bankruptcy, acknowledge the fact that you can never, ever be what God expects you to be, and accept Jesus as you personal Lord and Savior; in the other, you are a Jew. (does that make sense to anyone else?)
I agree that our policy in re: Israel should be one of letting them defend themselves. Like with any other nation. I mean, I’ve read and re-read the Constitution, and I can’t find anything in it that requires us to send our young men and women to die in the stead of another country’s young men and women.
That said, even if it were in there, it is morally wrong to fight in any war as an aggressor (I am guilty, personally, of this, and each and every soldier, sailor, airman and marine involved in our two-front war in the ME is personally guilty of this wrong as well), and there is just no threat large enough to substantiate a claim of a “clear and present danger” in the ME today, nor were there any six years ago.
This wrong-headed idea that America and all Christians must — at all costs — protect a tract of land that God Himself has lain claim to… it simply boggles the mind. In all the biblical accounts I’ve read, when God wanted Israel defended, its residents defended it.