The concept of “gossip”, and the wrongness thereof, is surely one of the most mis-used principles in church circles. The thing with talking about others is that it’s always honest, purposeful and righteous when you or I do it, but gossip, slander and abuse when the other guy does it. Obviously it’s often used by the powerful to marginalise and isolate the weak (or, indeed, to isolate their rivals and thereby make them weak). But that kind of double-standard is actually used by all kinds of people who lack empathy for others. They will subtly talk about the “issues facing” others, either “for prayer purposes” or just “so that you’re aware of what’s going on”, but react with great shock, contempt or disgust when anyone discusses them.

If I’ve learned anything about abusive relationships over the years it’s that you cannot restore broken or displaced emotional and psychological boundaries without being able to talk openly to someone about it – you need the external viewpoint to give you a proper sense of perspective. But not just any external perspective will do. Just because I’ve been sinned against, that doesn’t make me incapable of sin.

We’ve been through all the usual abusive church stuff – working long hours, including in a year-long, full-time role in which our use of working days, evenings and weekends was wholly presided over by the church leadership – but totally unpaid; attacks on our marriage; a campaign of gossip and slander about me between leaders; slander and misrepresentation of us when we finally left, with one of our closest friends writing us a hate-letter; and so on.

It’s true that we didn’t suffer direct physical or sexual abuse, and no-one at our former “church” has so far threatened to sue us. But I do speak from experience when I say that, for believers with abusive church (or similar) backgrounds, forgiveness is not optional, nor an unfair burden. It is possible, and necessary. In other words, Jesus was right. I think, though, that a big stumbling-block here is that we don’t quite understand forgiveness.

Patti said:

“I consider myself responsible for others abuse by wrongly keeping silent about my own abuse case in an IFB style school due to my confusion over what was taught about my responsibilities regarding gossip and forgiveness.”

Patti,

Thank you for being so candid in your comment. This is why abuse can occur for so long in certain groups. It is so tragic!

1. “Denman apologized to the girls, then summarized a Bible verse in which Jesus said, ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’

‘No one’s perfect,’ the 20-year-old Denman said. ‘I’ll admit to everything I did. I want to go to prison.’ ”

This response is incredible. “No one is perfect” is something you say when you send the wrong document to a recipient or forget a meeting–not something you say when you rape someone. And the verse he chose for his “apology” to the victims, is intended to be a rebuke to those who are judgmental, not to those who were victimized. He appears to be exhorting the victims to forgive him. He may want to pay for his sins by going to prison, but he still has some very twisted thinking about repentance.

2. With regard to Jared Wilson’s comment that accountability is difficult within a network of churches and affiliations, the hierarchical structure of their worldview does not permit anyone else to be able to speak into a senior pastor’s or leader’s life. The “subordinates” do not have “authority” to speak or act in relation to the leaders.

Their paradigm makes leaders untouchable, whereas in Christ’s kingdom paradigm, those who want to be great in the kingdom “must become the servant of all” and “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, neither male and female, but you are all one in Christ.”

Christ’s kingdom is not a hierarchy of authority, which is why Paul could confront Peter about his hypocrisy regarding eating with the Gentiles. God often chooses the weak things of the world to confound the wise and there are no peons in God’s kingdom.

If leadership viewed the members of their congregations as peers rather than “subordinates,” there might be a lot more healthy leadership in the church. Those who are looking for power may be less likely to choose being a pastor as a vocation.

That is a very sad thing.

I think the content of Jared’s post is really good, and he’s saying some things that people haven’t been saying much. That should not be overlooked. We should be hearing sermons about abuse and we should not be forcing unhealthy reconciliation. Both of these points would take the church a long way in standing against abuse if they were taken seriously.

I agree that his use of the word “gossip” is a typical misuse and is sidestepping; however, I do feel like he’s being pretty honest and at the least he’s giving us some statements about why SGM is wrong even if he feels he can’t name them. I don’t know much about Jared, but he seems to have a degree of humility and honesty about him.

I will note that I specifically asked him about divorce in abuse cases (because I wanted to see if this whole “don’t force reconciliation” thing was just lip service) and his answer was better than I anticipated.

I dropped by today to post a headline I just saw:

Fate of accused abusive [Southern Baptist] pastor [Travis Smith] in the hands of his flock

Here’s a quote from it:

“When a church rallies around its pastor, there’s disbelief that someone they trust could do something like this,” said Diana Garland, dean of the school of social work at Baylor University, which was founded by Baptists. “It often feels so much safer to blame the victims for causing his downfall, rather than accept that the power of a religious leader has been abused.”

… “When a Southern Baptist church faces a crisis like this, the easiest thing to do is just let the guy go — he moves to a different state, gets a job at another church and there’s no record of his actions,” Brown said. “If a minister is not literally sitting in prison, he can find a Southern Baptist pulpit to stand in.”

Another:

Smith “was rough around the edges when he was younger, and that’s where all this comes from,” Marriott said.

So raping people is just a case of “being rough around the edges” or can be chalked up to youthful immaturity? Way to water down the seriousness of rape.

How dare he, or anyone else, play the You Must Forgive™ card, and treat his victims like criminals with a debt to pay.

Oasis – if I’m quoting you out of context here, I can only ask your gracious forbearance. But the idea expressed in the above sentence is something I must take issue with, because it seems to me to encapsulate most of the misconceptions we have about forgiveness.

Of course, to demand forgiveness for oneself cannot be supported by any scripture. In effect, the man who demands forgiveness is declaring that he needs it, but that also he is unrepentant and therefore unable to receive it; he might as well be sealing his coffin from the inside. But – especially in a setting like this, which is set up precisely to support victims of abuse – we must understand that to forgive someone does not mean dropping the charges, letting them get away with it, and shame-facedly admitting that it was you who were wrong all along, and you will now meekly go away and get help for your “hurts” and repent for your “bitterness”. Oh, and remain shamed and diminished for the rest of your life. None of that has anything to do with forgiveness.

It’s worth remembering that the real command to forgive comes not from Jim Jones, or Adolf Hitler, or any anonymous date-raping loser, but from Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God and the most perfect conceivable manifestation of all that the Father himself is. Two things about Jesus here.

Firstly: he himself was persistently slandered, plotted against by powerful self-serving interest groups, betrayed, tried by a perverted kangaroo court and falsely convicted, subjected to a cruel, public and humiliating execution; and even as he was dying, his enemies crowded around him and mocked him for his supposed failure and defeat. And it was in that very setting that he prayed perhaps the most famous prayer of forgiveness of all time (if it isn’t already, it will be one day). So when he said, you must forgive, he was not saying, drop the charges, you deluded, worthless sack of s**t. He was saying, you must forgive; but first, let me show you exactly what I mean by that.

Secondly, Jesus is in very nature God – who defends the orphan and the widow, who pronounced woe to the rich and satisfied and blessed the poor and hungry; who has put down the mighty and exalted the humble and gentle. So again, when he says, you must forgive, he is not speaking on behalf of the privileged abuser. Excuse my italicising here, but it is essential we grasp this: when Jesus calls us to forgive, he is speaking on behalf of the marginalised victim.

Forgiving is, on occasion, like vomiting up poison – it may be an unpleasant prospect, but it expels the harmful material and leaves you free of it. And in any event, forgiveness is an act of conspicuously, undeservedly, gracious judgement. As Apollos (imho!) wrote to the Hebrews, the lesser is blessed by the greater. When you forgive an unrepentant person, you prove yourself their better. (How many people despise Ghandi or Mandela – and who cares about those who do?)

Just one more thing: forgiving doesn’t mean saying nothing and letting them do it again to someone else. That’s a judgement the wider community has to make, and if a church congregation won’t do it properly, then that’s not a wide enough community.

Why is it always ‘gossip’ when anyone suggests anything negative about one’s of Calvin’s boys, but perfectly legitimate for them to speculate about the salvation of anyone who questions one little detail of their theology? — Lynne T

Because Calvin is their Personal LORD and Savior, and A God Can Do No Wrong.

Hi, Nick…

Here is where I stand:
I do not believe in unconditional forgiveness (cancellation of debt) for everyone, always, in every case, with or without repentance. God does not forgive unrepentant sexual abusers, and neither do I.

I had more to say but decided to backspace the rest. Have to back out of this conversation, not feeling well.

I gotta say, I think Oasis was right on the money when they said

How dare he, or anyone else, play the You Must Forgive™ card, and treat his victims like criminals with a debt to pay.

He wants to involve them in his sin by admonishing them through the use of scripture to forgive him. That if they do not, they will be guilty. They will be in violation of scripture. And if they violate scripture, they are no different than he is. They’re guilty, too. So see? Nobody is perfect. His crime is no different than their crime of unforgiveness.

The man is sick. He is an abuser who assumed complete ownership over his victims, totally denying their rights, and then assumed he had the right in a court of law to dictate to them how they should think.

This is the same form of ungodly pride and arrogance you find in people like CJ Mahaney, who thinks God has given him the power to assume complete authority over peoples lives, ultimately to satisfy his own lust for power & control. And when confronted about their sin, they use the bible to condemn you as if you’re the sinner. Hey, no ones perfect. “I’m the worst sinner I know.”

Classic unrepentant sinner-speak.

“Well, in fairness to the critics of forgiveness, it is important to emphasize that forgiveness can be so distorted as to be part of the problem. Where there is cyclic abuse in a relationship, for example, forgiveness is usually a major contributing factor. The spouse forgives and then they go through the honeymoon stage and then there’s the brooding and accumulation of rage and then there’s the violence and then the placating (I’m so sorry and it’ll never happen again) and then more forgiveness. In this cycle, forgiveness is the heart of the pathology. The same kind of cycle is common in any relationship which is affected by addiction. So forgiveness can be aiding, abetting and enabling. Forgiveness is the central function of the enabler. So, it’s understandable that people would reject this kind of forgiveness – it is part of the problem.” David Augsburger

http://www.nacr.org/wordpress/160/the-f-word-forgiveness-and-its-imitations

Anne – Just use instead of [ ] and you’ll be good to go.

“practice” . sorry

“Forgiveness does not always mean reconcilation or fellowship”

Exactly. Forgiveness means I’m not expecting you to do anything to make up the debt I am entitled to receive from your actions. Letting it go, saying “you owe me nothing and there’s nothing you need to do for me now” is a wonderful place to be when we get there, but it does not mean we must continue to try to build a relationship.

Oasis –

Hi, Nick…

Here is where I stand:
I do not believe in unconditional forgiveness (cancellation of debt) for everyone, always, in every case, with or without repentance. God does not forgive unrepentant sexual abusers, and neither do I.

I had more to say but decided to backspace the rest. Have to back out of this conversation, not feeling well.

Thanks for saying this so clearly, and I hope you’re feeling better. On reflection, I can describe where I stand rather better if I use two different words because, as Evie (quoting David Augsburger) points out, “forgiveness” can be used to mean two very different things.

One meaning is better described as “clemency” – similar to parole or a judicial/presidential/royal pardon – where the perpetrator of a crime is set free and does not have to face the consequences of his actions. This is pretty much always associated with repentance (or else corruption), so does not mean simply freeing a criminal to strike again. I fully agree that God does not naively extend clemency to unrepentantly dangerous people and nor should we. Clemency specifically benefits the perpetrator; it is not designed to benefit the victim and it usually won’t.

Oasis again – I owe you an apology for taking premature issue with what you wrote; I shouldn’t have done so. Reconciliation pretty much comes under the heading of “clemency” and attempting to reconcile unilaterally with an unrepentant person is, I agree, unwise and maybe even dangerous. In that context, I agree that no-one has the right to compel a victim to be reconciled with an abuser.

Back to forgiveness per se, I mean it as a freely-chosen act by the victim that ensures there is no root of bitterness in her/his own heart. Forgiveness, in that sense, specifically benefits the victim; the perpetrator can take it or leave it, but that’s no skin off the victim’s nose. You can’t force a victim to do that, but you can help them. In fact the benefit to them is so great that you can’t afford not to.

singlrman,

Thanks for posting about the vote tally at CLC. Dee and I were discussing the results earlier today and will weigh in later this week.

elastigirl, the NT is clear that we struggle with “the flesh”. James also says we cannot claim to be without sin.

We are also considered born again and given a new nature. Paul says it is not we who sins, but the sin within us.

You can drive yourself crazy trying to nail this down theologically, and theologians wrestle with it, trying not to veer too far into either “cheap grace” (nothing changed when we became believers) or “perfectionism” (we must not sin).

For my part, what I think is this: do you struggle with sin? Because I think that is the mark of a Christian. We have a new nature that is not a nature of sin, and that nature does not live comfortably with the sin of our flesh. This is not to say that we don’t have some habitual sins or unknown sins that we are not working on, but are we generally comfortable with our sin? The Christian is bothered by the sin of the flesh and wishes and works toward it being left behind, whereas the unbeliever has no problem and no struggle. They are perfectly content with their flesh and it does not bother them to have “missed the mark”. They may, however, regret the consequences of sin, especially how it makes them look in the eyes of others.

That’s my take on it anyway.

Elastigirl, yes, you are right, I know several unbelievers who are the same. I tend to think of struggling with sin about caring about missing the mark before God. That is, it bothers us that we have grieved him, not just adherence to a moral code.

So people who feel a desire to be moral but don’t believe in God are grieved, but not necessarily for “sin” as I think about what sin is. This is what I was driving at with my “look in the eyes of others” comment, but in retrospect that falls quite short and is a crass way to define adherence to a moral code. And in fact, many unbelievers are simply beholden to their conscious, not “how they look in the eyes of others”. So I retract that. But I do believe striving to please God and striving to adhere to the direction of our conscious are different things, often related.

“Trying to understand all this myself. hmmmm… not so sure. My first thought is that this idea gives each of us our own personal born-again-police badge with sin-sniffing dog at our side.”

Only those who enjoy that sort of thing.

“First off, hate the term “born again” — i can hear it ringing in my head now, all the times this word has been spoken in my hearing in contexts dripping with christian culture = syrup, sugar, facial expression, tone of voice, judgemental 2-facedness ‘n all — BUT, I realize the words are in the NT, and I suppose i do fall into the category. (it’s all a bit mysterious)”

Sorry, Jesus used it talking to Nicodemos. I could have used “new creature in Christ”? Perhaps you could tell me what is acceptable so you wont be offended.

“I practice things that anyone would assume are contrary to God. I daily criticize without taking the extra step to be merciful and gracious about it. I am harsh about it. Regardless of how good my intentions are, I stop short of moderating my method in a way I know I very well could. I don’t think anyone would disagree that this is contrary to God.”

There are actual lists in scripture in places like Galatians and Revelation and that is not on the list. :o) This is what i think is the problem. We go a bit overboard defining sin so that by the time we are done, we are as bad as the child molester. I use the word “practice” as it is understood from 1 John. Walking in the light or walking in the dark denotes a lifestyle. What we practice.

“While what is “sin” is quite murky to me (aside from things like murder and stealing — but is it legitimate when the CIA, Mossad, etc. do it?? for national security??? aah, my mind is spinning)….. I suppose we could call my wilful choice not to moderate my criticizing as “sin”.

Which I practice daily.”

Should I hide the silver if you come over? :o) Or should I see you as a sister who strives to walk in the light, fighting her flesh/thoughts daily like me?

Therefore, I am not born again. ?????? If my husband were to espouse “but born again believers do not “pratice” sin”, he’d have no choice but to conclude it’s spiritual curtains for me.

“We do have the indwellig Holy Spirit who convicts us of our sins so we confess them to God and strive to please Him. Yes, we can strive to please God”.

Anon 1- this is what I was trying to say, only stated better. I would say the unbeliever does not drive to please God, which is different that saying the unbeliever does not strive to do good.

elastigirl – Do you think these interpretations of 1 John have anything to do with US evangelical church culture? (Kind of a loaded question!)

There are lots of God-loving people on these shores – xtian but not evangelical – similar to your in-laws.

elastigirl – I have been going through the same “getting rid of assumptions” process for close to 10 years now.

It can seem never-ending, although one thing I do know for certain is that I feel a lot better about myself – as well as God – now than I did before it all commenced.

About your Palestinian friend: I am so sorry she’s had to hear so many ignorant, unkind – and frankly, bigoted – words from US evangelicals. We are most alarmingly shut-eyed and unaware when it comes to all of that, and I also believe that many of us use “support for Israel” in a way that supports (rather than lessens)anti-semitism in this country… but that’s a convo for another day, and maybe another place. (Too much to get into here.)

Elastigirl, 1 John reads much better when one has been out of church for a long time. :o)

Coming on a little strong, Anon1. I’m working through things in my own way, for my own sake — I don’t expect anyone to figure me out.

Certainly smoking, drinking, etc. do not fit the “godly” template in most of christian culure. They are deal breakers or much of christian culture. A person is judged and labled for such things — everything else about that person is overshadowed by those “evils”. They are a lesser kind of christian, a disappointment, regarded with suspicion. These conclusions bypass intelligence & reasoning power. We agree.

I regard “sin” as things that are unethical, illegal and which amount to not treating people the way oneself desires to be treated. I’m sure this will be refined as I evolve as an aware, thinking person. I have a gag reflex with christianese language, and prefer to use language that is more plain. I cheer this blog on in the continued exploration and exposure of christians who support and engage in such things.

It is hard for my Palestinian friend. She is the lovliest of all people, and there is no more sincere believer in Father, Son Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit than she. She was raised catholic, married an eastern orthodox person, and together they raise their kids in both traditions as well as evangelical because they feel the teaching for their kids is so good.

But I can’t imagine what it’s like for her, when “Israel” is championed and sung about, prayed about, recited in liturgies, identified as God’s chosen and the object of her own religion’s support and favor. Her grandparents and those of her husband lost everything — homes, farmland, relative wealth, possessions — erything which they & their ancestors had been building for generations. Stripped & reduced to zero. Denied personhood and rejected in both their homeland and the country they fled to.

Very complicated.

Great blog article by Rick Thomas, former SGM pastor, was published today. It can be viewed here:

http://www.rickthomas.net/2012/12/17/what-does-bob-jones-university-and-sovereign-grace-ministries-have-in-common/

With numerous churches leaving SGM, current charges of sexual abuse leveled in a lawsuit and the well documented charges of blackmail by SGM President C.J. Mahaney one has to wonder how much longer will T4G continue their affiliation with C.J. Mahaney?

http://www.facebook.com/TogetherfortheGospel?fref=ts

This has interested me for a while, and I wonder whether some of our west Atlantic friends can through any light on this one.

I’ve often wondered whether christian zionism is so strong (or at least transatlantically audible) because of the strength of the Jewish vote in the US. I have no problem with the Jewish vote, btw; the Jewish community has the same right to vote as any other. But it’s interesting how all the American christians I know over here believe implicitly in some form of christian zionism, to the extent that they actually have a name (“Replacement Theology”) for what, to me, is the simple gospel of the Kingdom. In which, let me emphasise, there is neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one – and equally welcome – in Christ.

Things are, perhaps, slightly different on this side of the Atlantic. I think there remains at least some lingering sense of guilt at the Holocaust (unfortunately, the Holocaust did not banish antisemitism in Europe).

Nick, most Jewish voters in the US vote liberal. Christian Zionists just idolize the State of Israel because of their Dispensationalist misinterpretations of Scripture and they cosider Israel to be a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. They believe that an apocalyptic war in the middle east will usher in the Return of Christ. Christian Zionism could be viewed as antisemitic because it views Jews as mere pawns in an end-times scenario which would result in millions of Jews and Arabs dying in a nuclear war.

I can use no other word than “heresy” to describe Christian Zionism and Dispensationalism. Both are popular with fundamentalists in the US, including John MacArthur and his crew (such as Dan Phillips). Sadly this nonsense has been exported to other countries, although it initially was imported from the UK to the US (late 1800s).

I’ve learned a lot from this guy on your side of the pond: http://www.stephensizer.com/articles/

Here is some info on the Palestinian Christians: http://stephensizer.blogspot.com/2012/12/palestinian-christians-in-holy-land.html

Yeah, Orthodox Jews probably vote conservative, but they might be a minority among Jewish Americans. I doubt many Orthodox Jews are friendly toward Christian Zionists, however, due to the CZ’s belief in a coming nuclear war in Israel.

Nicholas said: “Christian Zionists just idolize the State of Israel … and they cosider Israel to be a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. They believe that an apocalyptic war in the middle east will usher in the Return of Christ”

This thinking was commonly expressed to me by relatives and fellow churchees when I was growing up. Plus Petra, rivers of blood, etc. I was always puzzled by the lack of sympathy shown to Palestinians and the emphatic, unquestioning “pro the state of Israel” position. I read a Time magazine article when I was a teenager about some older Palestinian women who had been beaten around the legs with rubber truncheons by the Israeli military. It impacted me deeply. Every zionist comment I heard after that I viewed through the lens of the old Palestinian women. There are some sympathetic portrayals in the media such as the film “Lemon Tree” and the British TV series last year “The Promise”, in which I now understand the significance of the big front door keys.

We have a smart atheist Jewish-Australian journalist who blogs on these issues, http://antonyloewenstein.com/ but in my opinion, taking a sympathetic Palestinian position is not popular here, it’s right up there with Green Left, and mixing with the socialists, pro-refugee advocates and non-mainstream Christians.

From the SGL blog:

First Sunday Service
September 6, 2012
We’re excited to announce that our first public meeting will be September 30, 10:30am, at 700 S. English Station Road, Louisville, KY 40245. God has blessed us with a fantastic facility to meet in and a great group of people who have been working hard to prepare for our launch. We’d love to have you join us as we celebrate God’s goodness on our first Sunday! …Read More

New Sunday Meeting Location Beginning January 6!
December 17, 2012
We are excited to announce that beginning Sunday, January 6th, Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville will be meeting at Louisville Marriott East Hotel at 903 Embassy Square Boulevard….Read More
================

I think those of you that have suggested that perhaps the Christian school where SGL was meeting gave them the boot are seriously mistaken. Clearly they have just outgrown their present location and needed more room to accommodate their burgeoning growth!
http://instagram.com/p/TTcL10J9It/

Yes Evie, I am aware of that. I am thankful for their efforts to keep this in the public’s eye. I also think their analysis in this post (quoted below) is spot on.

“With regard to SGM, the longer The Gospel Coalition crowd postpones addressing the lawsuit against Sovereign Grace Ministries and eight individuals, the more embarrassing their silence will be. When the systemic problems of SGM are revealed through court proceedings, their sycophants will go running for cover. As Dee has already predicted, we believe it will be one of the top stories for 2013 and will send shock waves throughout Christendom.”

I formerly attended one of Mahaney’s “family of churches” located in Arizona. Now I am at a church in Dubai pastored by a good man who previously served on Dever’s staff. I believe he speaks with Dever regularly and I have tried to politely keep him abreast of the SGM situation, hoping that perhaps he might caution Dever about his association with Mahaney. My words of caution have not seemed welcome so I no longer say anything to him about the situation.

While I am thankful for the solid gospel preaching at my church in Dubai, if I had other viable choices I would probably be attending elsewhere. I am a bit uncomfortable with the devotion to all things “Dever” here.

Yes Evie, Dubai is a very interesting place. I suppose the “complementarian gospel” probably does fit in well here although I must admit that I am hesitant to tie those two words together.

I believe it to be scriptural that pastors and elders are men. Not exactly sure what else the “complementation gospel” entails. I don’t hold to the view, common to some Christians, that women should be married as soon as possible and then have a quiver full of children. If you want to do that – fine, but I don’t feel it to be a mandate for all. I think women should be as highly educated as they desire. I am quite proud of my oldest daughter who graduated from Bethel Seminary and now is Dean of Admissions at Luther Seminary. Her and I are worlds apart doctrinally, but that is OK. Someday she will see things my way. (Just kidding!) I have another daughter, in whom I am equally proud, who has a college degree and has served two summers in China tutoring students in English, building relationships and sharing the gospel. Currently she has moved in with us and will be taking a college course in teaching ESL. When completed she will be certified to officially teach ESL and then hopes to get a job doing the same type of thing she did in China. My wife also keeps very busy here with ministry related things. I won’t go into it all as some things are of a sensitive nature. I write this to illustrate that even though my views on men ‘s and women’s roles probably differ from many in this forum there is no reason we can’t be friends or need to separate into different “camps.”

“I was always puzzled by the lack of sympathy shown to Palestinians and the emphatic, unquestioning “pro the state of Israel” position.”

It could be because they followed a charlatan Yasser Arafat who wanted them in camps and not successful or independent and died a billionarie. Yes, a billionaire.

There is a woeful lack of education about the trajectory going back to the late 1800’s. But if one tries to bring it up, they are automatically labeled a Christian Zionist so why bother? For example, no one mentions all the land Jews bought even before WW1 from the Syranians who laughed all the way to the bank because the Jews were buying what they thought was desert. Or the many offers for independence that were turned down by Arafat. But hey, what are facts?

BTW: I am not a dispensationalist either. I abhor ST of any kind these days. I do prefer democracies and abhor the oppression of women in any form.

@ dee:

Until this current crop of Calvinistas made complementarianism (gosh I wish they had chosen as shorter word) a priority one mandate…

I have a shorter word: MALE SUPREMACIST.

numo wrote:

afaik, “xitian Zionism” began in the UK, but I need to doublecheck.

Don’t know about “Christian Zionism”, but “Anglo-Israelism” sure did.

More like “not friendly with xtian Zionists due to the latter’s anti-semitism. (imo, at least.)

Not just iyo, Numo. Before I knew it was called Christian Zionism, I coined the name “Anti-Semitic Zionism”.

HUG – But… Palestinians are Palestinian. Most other Arabs are greatly prejudiced against them, regardless of their religious background and beliefs.

And the West Bank is terribly overcrowded, has painfully substandard housing and services. Israel keeps the people there on a very, very tight chain.

I am not suggesting that extremists do no wrong (they clearly do), but I can’t begin to imagine the hopelessness and despair that haunts the young people (has historically haunted the young people) there. I am not surprised that so many suicide bombers come from the West Bank and Gaza.

I’m with numo.

Anon 1 – (Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:37 AM) – I get all that. No disagreement there. There’s a huge swathe of history to be understood, I agree. A lot of trickery, lies, deceit. What I’m meaning is the state of the heart towards a group or race of people what have you. The ignoring of Palestinian people in the national psyche (except as labelled terrorists). West Bank as an example – a walled in ghetto. I have never heard empathy/sympathy, whatever, for those living there. Instead I just hear of “God’s plan for Israel”. Said with emphatic determination. I think those expressing that are confusing Israel the state with ideology/political aims/theology? I’m trying to work that one out.