Crusader War College

While I believe the above tackles the issue of the "guilt of the Jews" regarding Jesus' Crucifixion (additions welcome), the Deity of Jesus Christ is a much harder stumbling stone. Before addressing this, however, I want to point out the irony of leftists bringing this up as a wedge issue: they don't believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ any more than they believe in the Intelligence of President George W. Bush, so it's rather suspicious that they think it is an important point to raise when it is obvious that their attitude is "a pox on both your houses".

The fact is, the Deity of Jesus Christ is non-negotiable and cannot be interpreted away. Thus, I think a modus vivendi should be sought. I propose one in the following allegory:

The Jewish mother cannot handle the pathetic and dangerous besottment of the Christian Daughters-in-law with a son whom she has rejected as the insane and heretical black sheep of the family. Like all mothers (mine included, and I invite Jewish readers to use theirs as a guide-line), there's simply no changing the mother's attitude, and it should be understandable that she will not accept the legitimate claim of inclusion in the family via marriage. The problem is complicated by the fact that each of the DILs (Daughter-In-Laws) have come to a different means to resolve the conflict:

• Some have simply decided that the black sheep was not all he was cracked up to be, are effectively divorced from him in sprit, if not in name, and have made common cause with some of her ambitious (and not as faithful to the family traditions) sons in law, who reciprocate by active advocacy with the rest of the Jewish family. These sons have personal conflicts with the other DILs, have a win-at-all-costs attitude (incompatible with the family mores, by the way), and thus run intereference for the DILs that cooperate with them.
• Some of the DILs, still enamored with their Jewish lover, continue in attack mode out of loyalty. The jewish sons mentioned in the bullet above use this attitude to their advantage.
• The remaining DILs, still enamored with the Jewish lover, initially were in attack mode, but have recently decided on the revolutionary action of bothering to LISTEN to what their lover is saying and feeling about his own family. This may be hard for some of the Jewish sons to understand, but the lover himself, and his associates, are still loyal, as best they can, to the Jewish mother and her family, while having to balance that loyalty against the love he has for his wife. This is, to put it plainly, not an easy balancing act, and as in real life, reconciliation, or at least a semblance of peaceful co-existance, can be attained if the wife COOPERATES. (Jesus' loyalty to Judaism is easy to show: The story of the Woman by the Well in the Book of John (acknowledged as one of the last gospels written, and exclusively targeted to a Greek Gentile audience) shows a Man PC enough to reach out to a woman and a foreigner, but loyal enough to his ancestry to insist that "Salvation is of the Jews". The mission to evangelize non-christians came AFTER the ressurrection, while the warning that "whatever you do to the least of these, my bretheren, you have done it unto me", came at a point in his ministry when the only logical interpretation is that "bretheren==Jews". His personal healing ministry was almost exclusively limited to his Jewish brothers or to those they endorsed: I can recall only ONE healing he did for a gentile, and in the face of resistance by his Jewish disciples. So exclusively was he focussed on his Jewish bretheren that his disciples could be forgiven for some organizational inertia when the time came to expand the ministry in response to the mandate of blessing all the world given to the Patriarch Abraham in Genesis 12:3 (again, an overt return to the roots of the Jewish religion). There is NO indication that any violent conflicts with SOME of his bretheren, now dead, should be extended to ALL his bretheren, including those living today. And in his outline of the End of the World, he assures rewards to all who give even a cup of cold water to his persecuted bretheren.) Honestly, I can't figure out how ANY marriage, spiritual or human, will work if both partners don't take the time to PAY ATTENTION to each other and figure out how the other ticks. My wife still thinks I'm mad at her when I silently fume about the Demoncrats, and won't realise I WILL get mad at her if she springs time consuming demands at the last minute, while I've figured out the lead-time necessary before I tell her we need to get going (taking into account the demands she has the sense to make of me BEFORE the last minute).

Taking this analogy further, it's obvious that the wise Christian DIL's best approach is to respect the Jewish mother and blood siblings after recognizing the valid love her husband continues to have for them while being secure in the higher level of comittment her lover has for her, cooperate where she can, and hold her tounge when the mother or relatives goes off on one of their unpleasant spiels.

While it cannot be expected that the Mother will, in time, change her mind with regard to all the DILs (the attacking ones excepted), it is to the credit of SOME of her sons that they have noted that SOME of the DILs are showing a change of heart and attitude: "Yeah, she's fallen in love with a crazy heretical Jew, but she's fallen in love with a JEW, fer cryin' out loud!" It doesn't hurt that these DILs are supplying physical and moral support at a time of crisis in these jewish sons' lives: better late than never. And while the DILs obviously aren't getting along with each other, these Jewish sons know that THEIR family ain't exactly a model of dis-function free bliss and harmony.

I should probably point out several things about the above analogy: Both Judaism and the Christian Church in the New Testament are allegorized as women, so I use the Mother-in-law/Daugher-in-law analogy. I use mother and daughter in the sense of historical precedence. Christianity's belief in the union of Christ with all believers requires I take on the role of "wife", if not the gender connotation, so it will probably strike a reader like Trailing Wife as unusual that I count her as the roll of "Jewish son": I intend no gender confusion. And I hope that likening the stickiness of the "religious politics" and the confounding of "politics and religion" with the stickiness that occurs when two different familes try to get along with each other who have been united via what one side believes to be questionable means comes through. Certainly the dance SEEMS to have the same moves.

What I hope comes through is the strategy that I, as a DIL, plan to follow: cooperation with the Jewish sons who uphold the values, traditions, and customs of their Jewish family, allow Jesus to deal with those who do not, cooperating with him only on positive command, and abstaining from criticism of the Jewish mother religion while speaking up, as necessary when third parties may be involved.

At the moment, it looks as if the cooperation between Evangelicals and Conservative/Orthodox Jews appears to be based upon cooperation with regard to the War on Islamist Terror, leading to the obvious suspicion that the current theological re-evaluation is not based on a sound scriptural interpretation that would stand the test of time, but on temporal circumstances whose change would lead to a change in the theology. Nobody likes to be used, but this dislike goes both ways. While my belief is that we'll be fighting the WOIT for several decades, I feel we need to start thinking about postwar Jewish Zionist/Christian Zionist relations.

Although it has been a while since I was a Baptist and Evangelical, my personal belief is that the Evangelicals, while initially motivated to re-examine the basis of Replacement Theology because of the WOIT, eventually realized that the scriptural interpretation supporting it does not come up to the standard demanded of other positions held as fundamental by the Evangelicals. The scriptural arguments for Replacement Theology are looking as good as (that is, as bad as) those advanced to justify Black Slavery: Cherry picking of Romans 11 and a lot of handwaving to explain away the obvious contradictory verses. I think they're a bit red-faced now at the realization that they had been suckered, and the process gives me hope that eventually they'll come around to a straightforward and honest re-evaluation of their stand on the non-currency of first century spiritual gifts. To summarize: Replacement Theology has been rejected because the structure of the arguments were found to be fundamentally unsound, and that the current interpretation suppporting a form of theological Zionism and support for Jews and Israel will endure because the analysis was done, checked, and found to be up-to-snuff.

As for the Charismatics and Pentecostals, my personal take is that this was an inevitable theological brick that they were certain to lay eventually, but they hadn't gotten around to it sooner due to the perceived need to get other issues squared away first to ensure a sounder foundation. This is because they came at the issue from a different angle: the Evangelicals arrived at their position based primarily on a rigorous re-analysis of Romans 9 to 11, while the Charismatics and Pentecostals came at it via the standard methods they established to activate Genesis 12:1-3 as a promise. I.e., if you want a Divine promise to work for you, you figure out the necessary preconditions, pray to God regarding your intention to meet those pre-conditions, attempt to meet them, iterate to PROPERLY meet the preconditions, then claim the results of the promise. If the results are not forthcoming, the standard assumption is that the framework used to figure out and meet the preconditions, or the supposed actions performed that were intended to meet the preconditions, are not adequate. (One gets knocked around a little, and disappointed a lot, before one concludes that the problem is NOT God arbitrarily deciding to not meet His end of the promise bargain. This is clearly not the sort of process that is especially kind to Liberals, Leftists, Moonbats, and Palestinians, who hold that their problems are solely the fault of others and NEVER themselves). Thus, Jews cooperating with Pentecostal or Charismatic Zionists should expect that their loyalty will last as long as God keeps His promises to bless those who bless the Jews: I.e. nothing to worry about until the Sun goes Red Giant and engulfs the Earth.

I am encouraged by the growing Charismatic Zionist movement because it is a welcome counter-weight and opposing force to the attempted Reformationist coup d'etat and pre-emption of Charismatic Theological leadership I feared taking place a decade ago. All the charismatics I know of are intensely patriotic and extremely worried about the direction America has been taking. The Reformationist movement is an extreme form of Replacement theology, not only denying the continued privileged position of Judaism, but goes as far as to advocate a literal implementation of Mosaic Law (i.e. death penalty for adultry) tweaked by what few things Jesus and Paul said about it. The Reformationists needed patsies and foot soldiers, and thus hoodwinked many Charismatics into employing their spiritual gifts to take over the government (not that the Reformationists ever BELIEVED that Charismatics had spiritual gifts that actually worked.) Think Christian Sharia. I feel that this would a disaster: Full application of the Mosaic Law would work only for Jews, not Christians, even if a good deal better than Islamic Sharia, which doesn't work AT ALL for ANYBODY. Charismatic Zionism is a direct theological enemy and opponent to Reformationist Theology, reaffirming the privileged position of Israel vis a vis Her God and ours, and thus consequently denying the subsequent postulated theological vaccuum that the Reformationists insist that the Christian Church must necessarily fill. I haven't heard any rumblings recently about the fight, so I'm thinking the Zionists have the Reformationists on the run. Not surprising, since the reformationists were promising a legalistic heaven on earth after the Charismatics expended a lot of hard work and political capital to put the reformationists, not charismatics, in control of the Government. The Charismatic Zionists had Genesis 12:3 to offer the Charismatic Footsoldiers. Based on how faithful God had been in fulfilling other promises, this suited the Charismatics much better because the benefit-cost ratio was much more favorable, and the division of labor has God doing most of the heavy lifting. No contest.

My main concern is that, at the end of the War, Christian Zionists or Jewish Zionists are going to start worrying about the other parter stabbing them in the back and abandoning the relationship. It may be that both are in favor of keeping the relationship going, building on the good will built up during a time of crisis to tackle other problems of mutual concern, but if each gets the notion that the other is going to backstab, then its better for the ego to be the first to break up.

This is where I think blogs like this one, Israpundit, and countless others that are either Christian Zionist or Jewish Zionist, can prevent this scenario. Blogs have had an impact on the conduct of the War on Islamic Terror, and that impact and influence will grow. Part of their effectiveness will be the networks of trust and the relationships between bloggers and visitors that will be forged during the conflict, and which will be the foundation for cooperation in the aftermath. Even THINKING of abandoning the other would be unthinkable.

The relationship between Judaism and Christianity is unique in the history of world religion, and a great opportunity was missed to give witness to the God Of Abraham in the avoidable clash between the two religions over 19 centuries ago. The desire to be part of this relationship was the motivation of Islam, and the mistake Mohammed made in insisting that his religion be the head of the trio is the same one the Popes made. Better to acknowledge the debt, and move on to worship the God of Abraham in the manner and way He, and conscience, dictates.

Pages: 1 2 3