Christ at the Checkpoint: the Failing Experiment
by Hannah Weiss
The great Christian-Messianic-Zionist reconciliation experiment at Bethlehem Bible College is about to open a third round.
Both Zionists and anti-Zionists have declared the last Conference an inspiring success.
But measuring those claims by the declared goals of both sides instead shows a series ofdisturbing failures….along with one alarming success.
The Two-Year Old Debate Returns
The last Christ at the Checkpoint Conferencetook place in 2012 (5-9/march).In a hopefulmove that is stillhighly controversial, a small contingent fromIsrael's Messianic community attended, supporting the Conference goal of “an open forum for ongoing dialogue between all positions within the Evangelical theological spectrum.”
Here in Israeland abroad, a vigorous debate went on among Messianic believers about the wisdom and/or the effectiveness of their participation.Observing the one-sided report issued after CatC 2012, many of the brethren suspected that the Israeli Messianic contingent was being used as “a fig leaf” to deflect charges of anti-Israel bias. For example:
The Israelis in question published a joint Response, testifying of a positive experience and admonishing critics to not jump to conclusions.
(A Brief Response, )
Non-believers also commented on this “internal Christian debate,”particularly the media watchdog group, Committee on Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), which sent an observer to the Conference.
As an Israeli believer with an eye on the dhimmitudeposition of Christians under the PA regime and its inevitable effect on the Conference, I posted two articles contributing a different perspective, and issuing a challenge to those from Israel and the West, who enjoy greater freedom of speech.
“A Tale of Two Palestinian Theologies”
“Checkpoint Checkup: One Month Later”
The buzz on CatC 2012 more or less faded after a few weeks. Now two years have passed, a new CatC is on the horizon (taking place 10-14/march, 2014), and the same questions are resurfacing with new urgency.
They are legitimate concerns, since the previous Conference failed to meet many of its stated goals… and the Messianic contingent failed to notice.
The Conference Manifesto: from Honest Intentionto Window Dressing
The over-arching goal of the Conference was “serious engagement with Christian Zionism.” The Christian Zionist casewas mainly presented by Wayne Hilsden, pastor at the English-speaking King of Kings Assembly in Jerusalem, so most of my observations focus on the interaction surrounding Hilsden’s presentation. You can watch the videos of your choice at:
Manifesto Point 11.Respectful dialogue between Palestinian and Messianic believers must continue. Though we may disagree on secondary matters of theology, the Gospel of Jesus and his ethical teaching take precedence.
The Messianic visitors were satisfied that “we were treated with respect.” (Response, see the link above)Yet the moderate Christian Zionist viewpoint of Wayne Hilsden was repeatedly labeled “stupid” by Dr. Manfred Kohl, who spokeimmediately afterHilsden (
The above Manifesto Point,which defines these theological differences as “secondary” to our common faith in Messiah, also bit the dust when Kohl denouncedChristian Zionistsas deniers of Christ: “To jump from the Divine encounter in Genesis 12 to the modern secular state of Israel is to nullify God’s intervention in Jesus Christ.” (time-mark 21:00)
In fact, Kohl questioned the Messianic faith of those who believe that any of the Old Covenant is still physically relevant: “To insist on holding onto some parts of the Old Covenant means to not recognize Jesus in His totality.” (10:56)
Ironically, Kohl’s lecture was entitled, “Theology of the Land as a Dividing Issue.”
Manifesto Point 3.Racial ethnicity alone does not guarantee the benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Kohl’sdogmatic rhetoric was accompanied by a denial of Replacement Theology; he announced that its propername is “Fulfillment Theology” (after whichKohl used “fulfilled” interchangeably with “annulled” or “ended”). For Kohl, a casualty of that “fulfillment” is “the Israel of the Old Covenant.”
This effectively annuls Jewish identity, as well as the above Conference Manifesto Point… because the “racial ethnicity” of today’s Jews as a nation requires“parts of the Old Covenant”which in Kohl’s view areended.
Manifesto Point 10. Any challenge of the injustices taking place in the Holy Land must be done in Christian love. Criticism of Israel and the occupation cannot be confused withanti-Semitism and the delegitimization of the State of Israel.
For New Testament Professor Gary Burge, “Fulfillment Theology” doesn’t go quite as far as Kohl takes it. Burge recognized a group he occasionally called “the people of Israel” or “the Jewish people”. He insisted that his expectation for them to receive the spiritual promises without the national promises is not “supersessionism” (the academic term for replacing the Jewish people with the church). He emphasized this in his own lecture, and repeatedly in the Q&A session ( time-mark 9:30, 28:20).
But in his diagram illustration of Israel’s eventual salvation (29:10), Burge does replace the Jewish nationwith the church. In his timeline,thephysical descendents of Abraham are “Judaism” [sic], who only receive the name “Israel” when they join with the church. Thus the “delegitimization of the State of Israel” decried in the Conference Manifesto is legalistically avoided, while the roots of that state in Biblical history areerased– includingits rightful name(Ps.83:4). I point out the hidden political implications of this viewlater.
The Conference Q&A: From Dialog to Indoctrination
Wayne Hilsden, who definitely does not share Burge’s view on the “Children-of-Judaism”, seemed distracted by Burge’s constant linkage of this national erasure from biblical prophecy with another hot topic: Israel’s need to receive their Messiah in order to be saved, also based on biblical prophecy. On the second issue, Hilsden stated (10:30), “I love that diagram…We’re on the same page.” Then (apparently unaware of Burge’s error-filled book that demonizes Israel, mentionedbelow)HilsdenexoneratedBurge from public charges of being anti-Israel.
Burge’s response (11:25) was not affirmation of common ground or thanks for the volunteered defense; instead he took back the mikeand once again repeatedhis own position against the biblical basis of modern Israel, as if to draw Hilsden onto “the same page” there also.
To this observer, the exchange resembled less a dialog than an indoctrination exercise.
Burge kept repeating the CatC-approved position… never modifying, only clarifying;meanwhile, with each round of repetition,Hilsden madeincrementalmovements toward Burge’s immovable view.
Hilsden once (10:40) tried to imply that Burge had also moved, with the challenge that “I’m hearing new stuff.”But in the next breath he conceded that perhaps it was his own ignorance of Burge’s position that made it sound new: “Maybe you’ve been saying this for a long time.” Burge nodded approvingly, as if to confirm that there was nothing “new” here other than Hilsden’sfirst steps toward a more enlightened viewpoint on Israel/Palestine.
Whether it was the strain of standing alone in defense of the land-based prophecies, or from too much time spent in the spiritual fog of gushy compliments, at one point Hilsden began to modify his own position… and didn’t seem aware that he was doing it.
After reviewing his peculiar “Judaism” timeline (29:30), Burge repeated his position that the secular state of Israel is not the fulfillment of prophecy or the heir to the promises made to “Abraham and Moses [sic].”Nor did he accept the “land theology” of Israel. He conceded (30:00) that “God has a purpose for Judaism in history,” implying that the only Jewish identity mandated by the Bible is a religious system never mentioned in the Bible.
When asked by the moderator to respond once again to Burge, Hilsden this time (31:20) focused on Israel’s sins rather than God’s promise as the validation of the return to the Land: “Some sinful, less-than-ideal entityhas to be in the Land for this [the self-loathing of Ezekiel 36] to be fulfilled… So if it’s not this state, it’s another terrible state; and I would hate to think it’s a worse one.”
Besides slipping intoa dehumanized description of the Israeli people as an “entity”, Hilsden’s comments gave the unfortunate impression that he finds it hard to imagine a country treating its Arab Christians worse than Israel currently does. But this was and is the opinion of the CatC organizers, and it was slowly but surely seeping into the comments of Wayne Hilsden.
Andhere we observethe one undisputed success in achieving a declared Conference goal: to “motivate participants to become advocates for the reconciliation work of the church” as defined by the CatC “fulfillment theology” and “Palestinian narrative”.
This“motivating” influence of CatC on this earnest brother is highlighted by the fact that only six months previous, Wayne Hilsdenhad revealed to Charisma Magazine a very different “Palestinian Christian narrative”: the under-reported news that many would apparently prefer “the Israeli occupation” over PA rule, due to Israel’s decent treatment of its Arab citizens.
Hilsden says Arab pastors who work closely within the Palestinian territories have found the majority of Arabs would rather be under Israeli rule, but many are afraid to publicly side with the Jewish nation.
“Israel treats them as equal citizens,” Hilsden says. “They’re able to get social benefits that they would never get under Palestinian rule. And if you go to most of the surrounding countries where Arabs live today, you’ll see that they’re living at a lower standard of living than Palestinians living in east Jerusalem and the so-called territories.”
Messianic Pastor Seeks Truth in Middle East Conflict(3/October/2011)
Yet Conference motivator Gary Burge seemed to conclude that Hilsden still hadn’t moved far enough. In response to Wayne’s proposal that Israel needed to be in the Land for“self-loathing” purposes, Burge once again took the mike (32:00) and rejected the relevance of anything in Ezekiel 36 to Israel’s national future, since these Old Testament prophecies “are post-exilic” and “were realized in Christ”. In effect,Burge asserted that even a saved and repentant nation of Israel wouldnot be entitled to repossess the land of their forefathers… not now, not ever.
And then heagain went to work on Hilsden. Hesuggested that “it would be very easy” from this point to completely adopt the CatC view: allow for “the political legitimacy of Israel” as it is today, but deny that this country could have any “spiritual significance of what God is doing in Israel,” which is strictly among individuals.
Here would have been the ideal place to discuss passages such as Jeremiah 31:35-36, which declares Israel to be “a nation” in God’s eyesfor as long as the sun and moon are functioning.
Hilsden’s answer: “God is able in His sovereignty to use all kinds of unexpected entities for the working of His plan, including speaking through donkeys… Somehow He’s able to take the state of Israel, that’s not perfect, and somehow bring out His plans.”
By now Wayne’s earlier confidence in Ezekiel 36, God’s plan that required the Jewish return to the Land, was eroded to a hope that God will improvise some way to includein His plansthe “unexpected entity” of the reborn Jewish nation.
To be fair, I’m not sure that any Messianic leader could have held his ground under the spiritual, social and psychological pressure that faced Wayne Hilsden. That’s whyall future speakers from our community would do well to study his experience and draw the proper conclusions.
The Double-Speak Theology of Gary Burge
Manifesto Point 10. Any challenge of the injustices taking place in the Holy Land must be done in Christian love. Criticism of Israel and the occupationcannot be confused withanti-Semitism andthe delegitimization of the State of Israel.
The red-highlighted text is a personal credo of Gary Burge, who has invested a good deal of effort in denying that he – or anyone at the CatC Conference – is against the Jewish people. The protest is explicit in his book, WhoseLand? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians:
Evangelicals opposed to the secular nationalism of Israel are not discriminating against the Jews as a people. On the contrary, evangelical critics are expressing dissatisfaction with the behavior of a nation that ought to know better-a nation whose possession of the Scriptures ought to give it more light. (p.258)
So secular Israel is held by Burge to be legitimate as a political reality, but is weighed and found wanting by an odd yardstick: scriptures which once upon a time connected Israel’s conduct with a promise of restoration to their homeland… but which are now, in his view, irrelevant for the future of the Jewish state.
Put another way, he is not only demanding that the Jews to keep their end of a national covenant that no longer exists, but the bar of obligation is set higher for Israel than for any other nation (for example, the emerging Palestinian nation). And the only reason is that Israel once had these obsolete promises as an exclusive possession.
Whether Professor Burge realizes it or not, penalizing the Jewish state in a unique way for moral imperfections shared by all states, and citing its Jewish background as the only justification for that unique penalty, is “discriminating against the Jews as a people.” It is nothing less than political anti-Semitism.
The anti-Jewish element is revealed by Burge’s lack of context, which should compare Israel’s shortcomings to the moral failings of the Christian nations who likewise have had “possession of the Scriptures” for hundreds of years – plus the greater Light of Messiah.
The anti-Israel bias in Burge’s thinking is revealed in a string of persistent factual errors published in several editions of his above-mentioned book. For documentation, see the CAMERA report: “Wheaton College Punts on Burge's Errors, Another One Revealed”
We would like to assume that Burge’s errors were a result of ignorance. Although that would bring his scholarship into serious disrepute, it would at least absolve him of willfully misleading his readership. But Burge himself does not allow us that charitable luxury.
After correcting the errors pointed out by CAMERA in 2007, he published a new “revised” edition in November 2013, in which he repeated other errors from previous editions, and managed to addsome new ones. Without exception, all the inaccuracies are defamatory to the Israelis.
You can read his recent dismissal of this new list of wrong and misleading statements, a response which CAMERA characterizes as “simply not that of a scholar interested in the facts.”
“Gary Burge’s Missed Opportunity,” (31/dec/13)
( )
His publisher, Pilgrim Press, originally agreed todistribute new copies with an insert listing the factual errors, implicitly acknowledging that there is a problem. Later they reversed their decision because they anticipated that the author would not consent to it.
Others have commented on Gary Burge’s tasteless Jew-baiting stories which he included in his CatC presentation, based on his encounters with Jews in Israel. “Recalling those encounters, Burge emphasized time and again the ‘fun’ that he got from subjecting his Jewish counterparts to ridicule.”(“Gary Burge: Not Sent by Heaven”, Gatestone Institute, 9/nov/12,
Readers can judge Burge’s attitude for themselves by watching his lecture:
(time-mark 4:00 to 7:50)
(The video is no longer available at the CatC site or on Vimeo)
Ridicule of the Jewish concept of Shabbat “work”by a clueless Christian, who has no idea what “melachah” means, might be forgiven. The assumptions that the Zionist Jews he met would have no moral standards in claiming their inheritance might, with somewhat greater effort, be overlooked. What is not excusable is the double-speak about land entitlement based on Old Covenant promises.
In his lecture (13:00), Burge emphasized that those who conduct themselves as Abraham did will inherit Abraham’s promises as his spiritual descendants (including entitlement to the land). Butelsewhere he deniesthat same entitlement to any of Abraham’s physical descendants (regardless of their conduct).Here he quotes Paul (21:30) as proof that this covenant “cannot be annulled”… for the Christians. In the QA, he insists that these Old Covenant promises are not relevant… for the Jews.
Stephen Sizer, High Priest of Christian Hypocrisy
In any case, Gary Burge’s attitude pales next to that of British Anglican vicar Stephen Sizer.
Sizer’s reputation for anti-Semitic statements based on fabricated events is firmly established. Just one randomly selected interview (“Waking People Up to Reality”, 6/june/11) was brimming with examples.
Sizer dismissed both the idea of the Jews being God’s “chosen people” and there being any covenant that deeds the Promised Land to them – he called both ideas “rubbish” and insisted that the Old Testaments mentionsno such thing.