Talk:Christian Zionism/Archive 1

How to proceed?

How to proceed to a better exposition.

My proposals: Explain historically how the Christian Zionist movement came into being; if necessary with two versions: a pro and a contra exposition.

While I read the "Religious Zionism" article I see, there are many parallels between Jewish and Christian Zionism. In fact: "Christian Zionism" cannot be understood without "Jewish Zionism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.198.133 (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NOT a theological study!

This article should not be a theological study. Whoever the amillennialist is who is pressing his views need to stop. This is not place a state one position is true and the other is not. Especially when you lack even a fundamental understanding of the premillennialist position, which itself is not always dispensationalist, and is further broken into pre-, post-, and mid-trib views. This whole thing needs to be rewritten using only the facts rather than personal critiques. Post it on your blog if you're so upset about it, but don't come here with your personal views. Wikipedia is bad enough as it is.

Anyone up for rewriting this whole thing with the facts only? Differing views can be "based on THIS interpretation, THIS theology is derived..." and "based on this THIS OTHER interpretation, THIS OTHER theology is derived...", etc. 71.182.93.208 (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First comments

• The Makuya are a Japanese nonchurch movement sect of Christian Zionists.

I removed the "they won't say it publicly" comments cuz it doesn't sound like encyclopedia material -- makes it sound like Christian Zionists and Jews are being sneaky bastards or somethin. Trey Stone 11:34, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And just a side comment, I don't really see how Messianic Judaism is Judaism at all, and not Christian. Trey Stone 11:36, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it can be, see: Gorenberg, The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount (New York: The Free Press, 2000). Some orthodox messianic Jews want to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem so that their Messiah will come, and it is not Jesus. Complicated.--Cberlet 17:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To help you understand: A Jew never ceases to be a Jew. It is a Birthright as sure as a persons skin color. Even if one stops believing in a higher power (G-d) or even a different system of belief (like Kaballah) they will still be a Jew. Likewise when a Jew Receives Christ he does not loose his Jewish identity but rather it becomes refined into his new religious faith... Messianic Jew. They may go to their own Churches or they may be in the midst of other denominations but they remain "Jews". I hope this helps your understanding. You can leave it for others to read or just delete it after you have read it... Shallom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.92.182.1 (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What specifically needs work?

I have removed the "cleanup" tag since it seems totally improper. The text is detailed and balanced. If there is a specific complaint, let's talk it over here.--Cberlet 02:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of references designed to oppose the main article in the links section. Should they rather be in another article rather (say the anti-zionism one)? -- Oboler 01:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this article is extremely biased, and reads more like a polemic - which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia entry. I'm not a dispensationalist, but there are quite a few with Ph.D.s around, perhaps they could be allowed to describe themselves? -- 68.190.152.192 20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Steve Schaper, M.Div.

I found that to be, in this portion: "These evangelicals believe in a historically-recent and flawed theological view of the last things called dispensationalism. This is a view that was born out of the “secret rapture” hallucinations of a Scottish girl in 1830." .:. I'm not sure of the event, but to reffer to it as 'hallucinations,' is not only biased, but seemingly an attack on the view it is describing. Even the phrasing, seems to be against the idea this portion is trying to explain. It would not be fitting for me, a Christian, to adjust the article about Mohammad and say that he had 'hallucinations.' In most all these cases, regardless of what actually happened, the event sould be reffered to as "a vision" or "visions," as a quotation. This would also point to the fact that those who accept what the girl experienced, believe it to be a 'vision from God' and not a 'hallucination.' Also, in the section I meantioned, the phrasing, "flawed theological view of the last things called dispensationalism" - leaves no room for argument or proof. These are not a description, but one opinion. .:. Honestly, I think that the whole of this article needs reconsidering. The Herald Crow (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The section detailing the influence of Darby needs to be rewritten. It seems to indicate that Darby was responsible for the Scofield Bible when it was, in fact, C.I. Schofield who was responsible. Scofield and Darby were certainly peers, but it would be more accurate to say Darby influenced Scofield who, in turn, wrote the Scofield Bible. TX Ciclista (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought... Shorten the comments on Margaret MacDonald (the Scottish Girl) and make her name a link to its own page dealing with Both sides of that debate. Read her 1830's statement and you will find she did not proponent a Pre Trib anything.. but a Post trib. Typical internet hype from people who don't read before they post.

My second Comment: Rapture theory, Blessed Hope, Great appearing, meeting in the clouds are all Biblical phrases and have had thier own proponents from long before the 1800's... 1 Thes 4: was certainly written Pre 100CE and it contains the basis from which this doctrine comes... Ill leave this thought with some of you M Div's to ponder on... File it under Christian Sectarian beliefs in its own and just reference it. and then you can deal with little Margarette in that area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.92.182.1 (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

opening paragraph

The opening paragraph links Christian zionism with "evangelical Protestants" in the U.S. My experience is that the theology behind Christian zionism is exclusively "dispensational." I believe most would view "evangelical Protestant" as certainly broader than dispensationalism. E.g. Most Reformed denominations (PCA, CRC, OPC, and Reformed Baptists to name a few) consider themselves evangelical but oppose dispensational theology. Jim Ellis 17:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The opening paragraph makes it abundantly clear that not all evangelicals adopt Christian Zionism, and dispensationalism is mentioned shortly after that. I do not understand the problem. And not all Christian Zionists are dispensationalist (though most probably are).--Cberlet 19:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point is, I believe it is misleading to say Christian Zionism is "common" among evangelical Protestants. It is common among dispensationalists, which in turn is the common theology of independant Bible churches, many independant Baptist congregations, most Pentecostal and Charismatic groups. As far as I can tell, no Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, or Reformed Baptists exhibit Christian Zionism on theological grounds. I'm no expert. I guess I would like to see some source data that leads you to your statement. Regards, Jim Ellis 01:42, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

At least here in Norway Christian Zionisim is common among members of sevral Lutheran laymenorganisations (Norsk Israelsmisjon etc). I can provide links, but they will be in Norwegian, so I dont see the point The goverment controlled Lutheran church on the oter hand, is (in my opinion) quite antizionistic. Sveinung

"Dispensationalists" is not a term many readers will be familiar with. They are presumably a subset of evangelical Protestants, so the statement that Christian Zionism is a belief among some evangelical Protestants is correct. It doesn't say the belief is "common" among them. Adam 02:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added several print and link cites that back up the wording in the lead.--Cberlet 03:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I yield to the more seasoned Wikipedians, and I appreciate your efforts. Regardless of the perception of CBS news and others, the theological basis for Christian Zionism resides specifically in dispensationalism. Admittedly there is confusion among terms like fundamentalism, conservative evangelicalism, and (the less familiar) dispensationalism -- I was merely seeking clarification. Regards, Jim Ellis 03:29, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

The weakness of this article is that it fails to provide a definition or definitions of "Christian Zionism" and to discuss the problematic nature of the term, and that is reflected in the objections above. Who coinded the term? When? To whom does it apply?? Surely, the first thing an encyclopedia article should do is define the term! The statement "the theological basis for Christian Zionism resides specifically in dispensationalism" could only be true if tautological - if you say that the International Christian Embassy for example, is not Christian Zionist. They say they are. Sizer, who is cited in this article, first claims that a Christian Zionist is any Christian who supports Israel, and then quickly glides into a discussion of dispenstationalist theology. This article evades the issue of definition more or less, but it seems to be infused with the stereotypical and misleading idea of Christian Zionists as dispensationalists, based on Weber and more recently Sizer, and the extremists writings of people like Hal Lindsey. Unless "Christian Zionism" is taken to mean "Christian extremists who support restoration of the Jews and whose beliefs can be easily caricatured" (or just "people we don't like") it is misleading to claim that Christian support for restoration of the Jews is based primarily on dispensationalism. In Britain, it preceded Darby by over 200 years, and these beliefs were carried to the United States. Darbyism inspired Blackstone and Scofield, but there is no doubt that a lot of similar sentiment was born in America independently, and with no reliance on dispensationalism, at the start of the 19th century. Mewnews 21:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

jb is not gay and i am serious

image

May I have discussion of the image that was removed? If I know the concern, I might be able to answer. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Because it was glib, offensive, and POV pushing?--Cberlet 15:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I can understand why the image is offensive; and as for "glib", the image seemed to me to illustrate well both, the view described and the miscalculation of offense. I'm not sure which POV it's perceived as pushing, however. That's my miscalculation, and I very much regret the appearance of seeming to want to offend, if that's how it looked. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the image is glib or offensive, the issue is: what is the history of this flag? If it is in actual use by a Christian Zionist group, then it is relevant and can be used provided it is appropriately captioned. But if, as appears to be the case, it was made up by User:Mkmcconn, then it can't be used since it is not a real symbol of anything. Adam 07:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be closer to the truth to say that it's not the symbol of any one? it symbolizes Christian zionism (in a "glib" and "offensive" way). Anyway, there are other images that might be appropriate - but they are not inoffensive (perhaps, different parties are offended). The Jerusalem cross is sometimes called "the judeo-christian cross", and I've noticed it on a few Christian zionist sites, such as here and here. If an image is sought that would symbolize this movement, perhaps that would be one (although, a cross or dove in some combination with the star of David are more common and less ambiguous symbols) Mkmcconn (Talk)

Of the images you nominate, only the "Magen David-with-dove" appears to be explictly a Christian Zionist symbol. The Jerusalem cross is a straightforward Christian symbol. Adam 08:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

One more example Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What is the source of that image? Who uses that flag? Adam 04:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Christian Zionists of America" http://www.czoa.org - Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a very interesting website and some of its contents should go in the article, but I don't see the flag there. Adam 05:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The last bullet on this page is a link to "our flag" Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

POV lecture

Don't the books themselves remind the readers that they these are works of fiction? Isn't there a note from the authors indicating their advise that the books "should be viewed as these authors' early-21st century interpretations of Biblical prophetic texts applied to contemporary contexts" (quoting the deleted text - I don't know the exact wording of the authors' disclaimer, if there is one). If the authors' actual disclaimer is quoted, would that be appropriate to include, in your view? Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The books are listed as fiction. Some people think they are a clever way for LaHaye to push his right-wing dispensationalist conspiracist views. Do we really want to open up that can of worms on this page? Maybe add 750 words just to explain and be NPOV, with different views represented? I would rather not. Maybe on the page about the series.--Cberlet 19:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't reference to them be deleted, then, rather than leave it as "The novels are built around the prophetic role of Israel in the apocalyptic End Times." It appears to me that the can of worms you're hoping to avoid is opened with that line. It beckons for clarification. You don't think so? Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a simple fact. A reference to increasing attention to the issue.

"Popular interest in Christian Zionism was given a major boost around the year 2000 in the form of the Left Behind series of novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. The novels are built around the prophetic role of Israel in the apocalyptic End Times."

This is so totally non-controversial. I really do not understand your objection at all.--Cberlet 22:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Really? The objection is that, the novels are fiction. They are not prophecy. Do you object to explicitly stating the authors' intention, that the "prophetic role" and "End Times" theme should be read as fiction? Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The word "novels" tells the reader they are fiction. It is perfectly possible for a novel to spark interest in a factual topic. Adam 04:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I was more interested in whether there is a disclaimer that extends to peoples' misunderstanding of the factual topic, in light of the books. From looking around, these past two days, I think there is no such disclaimer; in fact, quite the opposite, the authors recommend their books as an "accurate", and "literal" interpretation applied to fictional characters and circumstances. I'm content to let the issue rest. Mkmcconn (Talk) 07:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Hostile relationship?

"While there has historically been a hostile relationship between these two communities" - When has there ever been a hostile relationship between evangelicals and Jews?

Evangelicals have traditionally viewed Jews as deliberately stubborn, blind, etc. Jews have traditionally been extremely unhappy with Evangelical efforts at converting Jews. That is a hostile relationship. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As well most jews tend to be fairly liberal politically, in contrast to most evangelicals. This often means that Jewish political groups take contra positions to evangelical groups on most issues. Klonimus 17:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I have never known an Evangelical to speak of a Jew as stubborn or blind, it is certainly not in any of the Christian creeds. Evangelicals do want to make converts "of all nations" - this is part of the definition of an Evangelical. Evangelicals and Jews do tend to be on different sides politically (conservative/liberal) but they both support the nation of Israil. - Come on now... please reconsider this hostility thing. This seems more like anti-evangelical bias than objectivity. If there is any hostility it certainly does not come from Evangelicals. We LOVE Jews, they wrote most of the Bible, we pray for the peace of Jerusalem, in fact... we pray to a Jew every day, several times a day. We are many things, but not hostile. - a non-hostile Evangelical

In the same way you "love" homosexuals? Love the heretic, hate the heresy? Adam 06:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Talk about a POV from Adam.

Yes, we are committed to love those who disagree with us. It is a paradox most can't understand (and many do not love well.) But it is core to our faith. To love those who would disagree with us, persecute us, and yes even to love those who call us "hostile" on Wikipedia.

I'm not interested in those who persecute you, I'm interested in those you persecute, such as me. Adam 07:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Give me a break>>>>>>>>>>MJW

Well fortunately most Americans' support for Israel does not come from apocalyptic evangelical belief. this seems to have wandered off-subject though. J. Parker Stone 11:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Coming From the other side, I've found most Jews tend to feel very negatively about Christian Zionism as they see it as an attempt by the Protestants who think they are bringing about the endtimes and sending all Jews to the firey furnace.

--Zack

I strongly concur with Zack. The article is in error when it states that Judaism prefers non-secular states. Historically, the greatest actions taken against Jewish individuals have been perpetrated by explicitly non-secular states such as Spain, Portugal, and England (exile, confiscation of property). Contemporary Jewry in the Diaspora has great suspicions of nonsecular governments, stemming from a long, unfortunately rich tradition. <- Eli

I feel that zionist Christians are constantly misrepresented. My motivation (and, I believe, the motivation of most evangelicals) for supporting the Jewish people and the re-creation/preservation of an Israeli state is not apocalyptic as is always being suggested. There are factors, actually. Here are a few examples:

1. Past persecution of Jews by self-identified Christians, primarily agents of the Roman Catholic Church. One reason we feel obligated to reach out to Jewish people now is because of the way we have treated them in the past. Throughout history, no group of people has been so persecuted, so hated, so mistreated as the Jews.

2. Biblical prophecies (found in Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Zechariah, etc.) concerning the reestablishment of Israel, the gathering of the Jews from the Gentile nations, and their eventual return to the Holy Land. The Hebrew Scripture indicates this will happen not long before the Messiah is revealed. (Many theologians and biblical commentators thought a modern-day Israel was not possible. In fact, they believed Israel could only be reestablished under Messianic reign, that is, during the millenial reign of Christ. They did not believe it to be a "prerequisite" to the Second Coming.)

3. The blessing promised to those who bless Israel, the natural seed of Abraham (Genesis 12). The Bible states definitively that God loves the Jews, His chosen people, firstborn of His covenant. In the Torah, they are described as the "apple of God's eye" (Deuteronomy 32).

4. Christian believers, particularly in the evangelical community, are beginning to examine the Hebraic roots of the Christian faith. As we investigate the culture, history, and language of the biblical authors (both Old and New Testaments), we gain a greater understanding and appreciation of Scripture. At least sixty-five of the sixty-six books of the Bible were composed by Jews, and Y'shua (Jesus, the One we hold to be the promised Messiah) was a prominent Jewish rabbi from Nazareth.

The secular assertion that the primary reason for Christian zionism is to hurry along the Second Coming, at least in my experience, isn't true. Articles that infer so, I'm sure, must have a negative impact on Jewish-Christian relations. I support the restoration of biblical Israel because I believe the Jews have a God-given right to the land. No hidden motives, no secret apocalyptic desires. -- A Zionist Evangelical Christian

Per point 1 of A Zionist Evangelical Christian which says "Past persecutions of Jews by self-identified Christians, primarily agents of the Roman Catholic Church." First, the Catholic Church has a long institutional memory, going back to St. Stephen and St. Paul. Second, the Catholic Church often moved to protect the Jewish communities in Europe during the "Dark" Ages, the Middle Ages, and into Modern Times, against anti-Jewish mobs, rioters, and bigots. Third, the Spanish Inquisition, which prosecuted non-Catholics remaining in Spain after the expulsion orders, paralleled similar prosecutions in England and other Protestant lands against Catholics remaining after their expulsion orders; it was not a tolerant age, Catholic or Protestant (in fact there were long-standing religious wars, Catholic vs. Protestant, as well as Catholic vs. Moslem). Fourth, the majority of the votes that Hitler the Nazi got came from Protestants. Fifth, the Ku Klux Klan was not only racially biased, but also anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic, and was composed of self-identified Protestants. -- An ecumenical Christian for continuous dialogue among all religions.

Per point 1 of A Zionist Evangelical Christian which says "Throughout history no group of people has been so persecuted, so hated, so mistreated as the Jews." All such oppression against any group or anybody should be resisted, and those resisting aided by others, so that the oppression ceases. Certainly anti-Jewish oppression has from time to time occurred in history, dating back to Ancient Egypt. We live in the sorry shadow of the Shoa. Yet even in the comparatively brief history of the U.S.A. there have been wicked oppression in plain view lasting centuries, of Native Americans, and of African Americans, as well as war-time nuclear strikes against several Japanese cities. -- A Human being for non-violent conflict resolution.

Per last paragraph of A Zionist Evangelical Christian which says "I support the restoration of biblical Israel because I believe the Jews have a God-given right to the land." A number of questions arise. Here a "devil's advocate" presents one side amongst many. Does biblical Israel refer to the theocratic government of the ancient Hebrews? How would this compare to the modern State of Israel? During the Jewish absence of nearly two millennia, other people remained living in the land; would God's will be to show justice and mercy toward them? They are mostly Muslims, who claim to follow Abraham, and a minority of Christians. Would God's will now require that their consent be peacefully bargained for and obtained? Or is violent conquest still God's will as it was three millennia ago duing the era of Moses when facing "pagan" Canaanites? Regarding the God-given land, what about the intervening property rights, and the human rights of the owners and dwellers? Can the prior owners simply be expropriated and expelled during a time of war, without just compensation and without trial? Does God's will here trump legality and justice? Simply collateral damage? What then of the God of Mercy?

Elfelix (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Couple of points here;

First off, lose the "primarily agents of the Roman Catholic Church" stuff. Luther's prejudice against Jews is well documented, as is that of a number of proud Protestants throughout the ages (the KKK, for starters). Antisemitism was a fact of life in Christianity until this century - Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox all had their share of it, none of them "primarily" so.

Second of all;

The reason Jews are historically wary of fundamentalist Christianity is that, from their point of view and that of any other people who are not conservative WASPs, and who might even agree with you on certain issues - like abortion, in my case - it's pretty hard to distinguish you from the racist and antisemetic Old South from back in the day. You have the same base (white, conservative rural southern Protestants), the same rhetoric (God is a capitalist, women belong in the kitchen, the government wants to steal your babies), most of the same prejudices (against Catholics, homosexuals, immigrants, liberals...)

What interests me the most, however, is that you have so many of the same damn people. Jerry Falwell, the man who made the religious right what it is, began his career as a dedicated white supremacist preacher, while George Wallace, the last champion of the Southern Democrats, became "born-again" and found refuge in the religious right only a few years after his last electoral defeat. During the sixties, before the consensus that "racism is bad" emerged, every conservative evangelist in the country (Billy James Hargis, Gerald L. K. Smith) was on the wrong side of the issue, and their followers were very slow in changing their minds. Remember the crap Mitt Romney got from Mormon-bashing evangelicals because his church had waited until the seventies to abandon racism? Well, Huckabee's Southern Baptist Convention waited until nineteen-ninety-five to do the same, and Bob Jones University didn't allow interracial dating or relationships, let alone marriage, until the year 2000!

Call them paranoid, but a lot of Jews are simply not willing to trust a movement whose members so openly and blatantly preached hate against them until recently. It looks to many as though the evangelicals only changed their position to supporting Israel after and because it had become politically impossible for a Christian in the U.S. to respectably hold antisemetic views. The conversion comes very, disgracefully late; it was not an initiative of the fundamentalists, but rather something that had to be rammed down their throats by the federal government and their mainstream counterparts; and a lot of Jews are suspicious of ulterior motives given that if you read the book of Revelations scenario that has the evangelical world salivating, it doesn't work out so well for the Jews. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Preparatory theology

The article seriously lacks historical depth, by placing the origin of religious interest in the Jewish resettlement of Palestine so late as Scofield. The roots are much deeper and older, in streams of Puritanism, adventism and other apocalyptic forms of Protestantism. That section ought to be expanded considerably. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that those movements long preceded modern political Zionism so the issue wasn't really the same. Adam 06:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Mkmcconn is right, this article seriously lacks historical depth. Those movements provided the cultural/historical context for modern political Zionism. To neglect their role in the formation of Christian Zionism displays a very shallow understanding of the development of the movement.

Biblical roots

English is not my native language, but if someone else writes to better English I can help on the Biblical roots part. Sveinung

"Fundamentalist Christians after WWII"

Removed word "fundamentalist", because (according to everything I've seen) before 1967, mainstream Christians were actually a lot more important in U.S. political support for Israel than fundamentalists. AnonMoos 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, LBJ was one of said mainstream Protestants. Makes sense; Christian fundamentalists pre-1980s were usually white supremacists, not historically a hotbed of Zionist activism. 86.211.75.83 (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro

It says "some Christians" while only Protestant Christians have such beliefs as far as I know. I mean no Catholic or Orthodox Christian can fall under this category so why not specify Protestants?--Eupator 02:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It could say "tens of millions of Christians, overwhelmingly Protestant," but in fact there is a small contingent of apocalyptic Catholics who stray from the official Vatican position on the End Times.--Cberlet 16:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In which case they are no longer Catholic. Roman Catholicism is an institution, not only a denomination. Individuals differ with their church all the time, but their beliefs aren't "Catholic" unless they're condoned by the RCC (John Kerry and Joe Biden don't make the church pro-choice, do they?) In this case, it sounds like you're talking about a different church entirely, one of these groups that broke away after Vatican II - and, therefore, are no longer Catholic.

The fact is that Christian Zionism is rooted in Protestant doctrines (though not representative of Protestantism as a whole); there are no equivalent dogmas in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox beliefs. Some individuals may believe the same things, but they do so against the doctrines of their own churches - which isn't the case for their fundamentalist and evangelical brethren. 193.253.237.223 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Internally Consistent?

This ariticle states that "The Democratic Party, which has the support of most American Jews, is also generally pro-Israel, but with less theological underpinnings." and also "... has brought them together, as has their opposition to secularism and their perceived pro-Palestinian and/or anti-Israeli tendencies of the political left." We can't have it both ways, either the democratic party has the support of most Jews and is generally supportive of Israel, or Jews are drawn to Christian Evangelicals by a shared dislike of the political left. I would view the first statement as much more accurate, the majority of American Jews are supporters of the democratic party, and the majority of Christian Zionists are supporters of the Republican party. They may have a certain affinity for each other based on their shared feelings towards Israel, but I don't think it is generally political. Also, I disagree that most American Jews are anti-secularist and think a citation should be given for this. If anyone objects to my changing these sections give a reason. Not my leg 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I tried to make sense of it, the language was very awkward. Feel free to make more changes. However, both of the following are true: the Democratic party has the electoral support of most Jews and is generally supportive of Israel, AND some Jews are willing to work in a Republican-led foreign policy coalition with Christian evangelicals through a desire to defend Israel and hardline politicians there; and a shared dislike of the political left's policy stance against Zionism. The secular phrase needs a cite and better language. I cut it. Thanks for catching this.--Cberlet 02:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is less confusing now. I agree that both can be true, generally the left supports Israel, and generally Jews support democrats, but some view the left as unsupportive, or at least less supportive, than the right. As it read it just didn't really qualify either statement. Not my leg 18:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what should be explained is that Jews are mainly supportive of the Democratic Party because of political reasons that do not necessarily include Zionism on that agenda. From my experience, while most Jews believe in Zionism they would only make that a political issue if they were faced with an aggressive or very open anti-Zionist politician. And that does not tend to happen frequently in the United States.

Something that I think has been left out of the discussion on the motivation of different Zionist groups is that most if not all Jewish Zionists that I know are not Zionist because of religious reasons. Most Jewish Zionists that I know are Zionists because after the Shoa and in a deeper historical context, until Jews have a home they may continue to be persecuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.211 (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason both can't be true; it is completely logical to ingratiate yourself with both parties rather than just one (wouldn't it be a little awkward if American arms shipments to Israel were on-again off-again depending on what party the President was?) As for the secularism issue, Jews can be considered an ethnic group as well as a religion (plenty of self-described Jews are actually atheist or agnostic). And either way, it's in the interests of Jews, a minority in a mostly Christian country, to defend secularism as the lesser of two evils (the other being a completely Christian-based government). 193.253.237.223 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitional Issue

The intro to this article says: "Christian Zionism is the belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy, and is a necessary prerequisite for the return of Jesus to reign on Earth. This belief is commonly, though not exclusively, associated with evangelical Protestants around the world." --- I think that is a too narrow definition. It suits Pat Robertson on the one hand, and it suits Stephen Sizer on the other - the extremists. True, there is an official "Christian Zionists" group, but just because they take the name, doesn't mean they represent all or even most Christians who are Zionists. Stephen Sizer and his followers want to give the impression that if you don't support rapture and Armageddon etc then you must follow him and be an anti-Zionist. It is not so.

There are a lot of Christians who support Zionism and Israel and who might say they are "Christian Zionists" but who do not believe in rapture, armageddon or conversion of the Jews. The call for restoration of the Jews began a long time before Darby and dispensationalism. See for example http://www.ifca.org/voice/05Mar-Apr/ThomasIce.htm and many similar articles.

What is done in this article, is like saying that all of Jewish Zionism is represented by Rabbi Kahana and the JDL or by the Zionist Organization of America, or that all of Judaism is represented by the Neturei Karta just because they call themselves "True Torah Jews." Perhaps it would be better to call this article "Evangelical Christian Zionism" and to write a different article that explains Christian Zionism and Christian support for restoration of the Jews. Mewnews 16:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting point, and it certainly is true. The question then is, what is this article about? Is it about christians who support zionism (for any number of reasons), or a specific movement known as Christian Zionism, which espouses that support of zionism is necessary because it will bring about the christian rapture. I would say it is the latter.

I would agree that the name is confusing, and that Christian Zionists do not hold a monopoly on reasons for christians to support zionism, any more than "alternative rock" held a monopoly on alternatives to rock. Nevertheless, that is the name of the movement, and I think changing it would actually invite more confusion for people searching for it by name. Not my leg 17:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this an article about members of a certain faith that happen to hold a certain political ideology, or about a specific theology that coincides with politics? And if the latter, is there an alternative formulation of the relationship? I think these are essentially the points that need to be cleared so as to identify exactly what the article is about. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dubious claims

Moving 3 claims (for now) to talk, dubious parts italicized:

1. Heresy
2. The return of the Jews... is a necessary prerequisite for the return of Jesus to reign on Earth -- do all Christian Zionists necessarily believe this?
3. This belief is distinct from the general political belief that the Jews have a right to a national homeland in Israel (see Zionism) - AFAIK, Zionism is a roof for quite a few various movements, among them Religious Zionism, General Zionism, Labor Zionism, Reform Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, etc. I know many Christian Zionists who believe that the Jews have a right to a national homeland in Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Christian Zionists

I made a category that may interest some of you. [[Category:Christian Zionists]] --Kalmia 22:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Paraphrasing Hal Linsey's beliefs

Minor Edit: I am familiar with Hal's writings and made a minor edit to that section. Where you describe his description of the apocalypse saying "all non-Christians", I replaced with "all aggressive enemies surrounding Israel" as per his books, public statements, and commentary on the book of Ezekiel. All in all, great article though.

--JasontheDragonslayer 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you're trying to justify his beliefs by adding the "aggressive" bit. I'm changing it until you can find a direct quote. When you do, add quote marks around them.--Kitrus 07:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Evangelical critics of Christian Zionism

Since not all evangelicals are advocates of Zionism, it behoves someone to insert a section about Evangelical critics of Christian Zionism. Anyone care to take up the task? DFH 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's Jimmy Carter who could be listed. Unfortunately his views are hardly representative of the modern day evangelical community - to the point where it's fair to say that Christian Zionism is an integral part of evangelical theology in the modern United States. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

meaning of "ingrafted"

In the opening paragraph, I clarified the meaning of "ingrafted Gentile Christians" by referencing the Bible chapter and verses that speak of this.Jlujan69 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A crucial piece of historical/theological background is missing from the article

The 'Christian Zionism' article (as well as the 'Zionism' article in its 'British influence' section) contains the statement "Ideas of the restoration of the Jews in the Land of Israel entered the British public discourse in the 19th century". This ignores a theological movement that began with Martin Luther's translation of the Bible, or more precisely with his preface to the Book of Revelation (or Apocalypse) in the 1530 edition of his Bible. His exegesis of John's Apocalypse recognized in the symbols and prophecies the central (and mostly nefarious) events in the history of the Church, coining along the way the associations between Rome and the 'whore of Babylon' and between Pope and Antichrist that were to become so popular with Protestants everywhere. Basing themselves on his methodology, several reformist (mostly Calvinist and Anglican) theologians later wrote tractates, mostly interpreting the Book of Revelation but also commenting on various Old Testament books of the Prophets, which contained explicit references to the restoration of the Jews to the Land of Israel and, indeed, vigorous predictions to that effect. The movement was strongest in England in the early seventeenth century and its three most famous exponents are probably Arthur Dent, Thomas Brightman and Joseph Mede, who have been variously dubbed by historians "Calvinist millenarians" and "Tudor apocalypsists". There is no doubt that this precedent greatly influenced the stream of nineteenth century Protestant support for the return of the Jews to Palerstine that the current articles speak of. Neither the movement nor its exponents have, as yet, been featured in the encyclopedia.85.18.201.167 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Tuvia Fogel 10 December 2006

Good points, got any cites?--Cberlet 16:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Zionism wikilink

Please explain why there is a wikilink to Zionism displayed as Jewish Zionism in the article, i.e. like this: Jewish Zionism. I am finding this confusing, but, recognize it could just be me since I am just beginning to explore this topic. Thanks! Keesiewonder 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Because on this page we need to distinguish between Jewish Zionism and Christian Zionism. Elsewhere it would be more problematic.--Cberlet 16:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

British Israelites and Christian Zionism

Does anyone know anything about British Christian Zionism? Is it related to the British Israelites? I am interested in Oliver Cromwell, Isaac Newton, William Blake , Orde Wingate, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. Is there any information about secret societies in Britain which have Christian Zionist views? What sect did Orde Wingate belong to? Wool Bridge (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell, William of Orange and Lloyd George should be added to the list of prominent Christian Zionists along with Orde Wingate. I think the term Christian Zionist was not used then , they were known as Dispensationalists? --Rolec Dubbing (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Dispensationalism

i indicated that part "The Church is the Israel of God Today" is about criticism of dispensationalism. it is marked as disputed but i didn't see a specific discussion on the talk page. i suggest that dispute on this subject should go on a separate section of the talk page. 78.185.144.23 (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Many sections of the article are obviously written to discredit the Christian Zionist view. See "Why go back to Old Testament sacrifices? Dispensationalists would say that the animal sacrifices in the millennial temple are only memorial services of Christ’s atoning work. But in what way did Jesus say his disciples are to remember him? Through animal sacrifices? God forbid! It is by partaking of the Lord’s Supper, just as he commanded" and "How then could dispensationalists say that the land of Canaan belongs to Israel forever, when even Abraham, the first Israelite, did not acknowledge the land as his permanent dwelling place? All the heroes of our faith ”did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us” (vv. 13-16, 39-40). Could that “something better” be the land of Canaan in the millennium? Absolutely not!". Lizrael (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Orde Wingate and Lloyd George

You need a section on Orde Wingate in this article.[[1]] He was the most influentian Christian Zionist after Lloyd George --Rolec Dubbing (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wilson, Balfour, Churchill and Truman

The book Standing with Israel written by a pro-Christian Jew and with a forward by John Hagee believes these peoples' support for Israel stemmed from a religious belief. So they would be Christian Zionists? The same might be said for the many robber barons who signed the letter urging President Harrison to build a Jewish homeland.--Comradesandalio (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)