Even many Jews worry about being associated with Pastor John Hagee and his powerful lobbying group, Christians United for Israel. Because of his erroneous interpretation of Scripture, Hagee is completely ineffectual in his mission to help the Jewish people -- there are many reasons to support modern Israel, but fulfillment of biblical prophecy is not one of them. To find out what the Bible really teaches about the End Times, read Hank Hanegraaff's The Apocalypse Code.
What's your take? Discuss this and more in Hank Talk >>
Read Chapter One of The Apocalypse Code >>
"When We Let John Hagee Speak for Us" by Rabbi Eric Yoffie. The Forward, May 18, 2007
SECTION: Forward Forum; Pg. A9
The American Jewish community must decide: Does it want to connect young Jews to Israel, or does it intend to drive them away?
By supporting Birthright Israel, the community was wise enough to see that even our most disengaged young people have a yearning for connection to the Jewish state. Birthright is one of our proudest achievements.
Still, Birthright alone cannot create Zionists or committed Jews. What it can do is ignite a spark of Jewish interest that we must carefully tend so that it grows into a roaring fire of devotion to Israel and to Jewish life.
Yet we are faltering in tending that spark. Our most committed young-adult Jews are living Jewish lives in which Israel plays, at best, a peripheral part.
I am referring here not to the alienated and uninvolved, who are distanced from all things Jewish, but to Jewish activists who create havurot, join minyanim or find a place in established synagogues or Jewish community centers. These future Jewish leaders are not hostile to Israel, and many have positive memories from Birthright or youth-movement trips, but Israel today is a marginal part of their Jewish consciousness.
There is no single explanation for their disaffection, but surely one important reason is the increasingly right-wing and even reactionary tone that some elements of the organized community have adopted in their pronouncements on Israel. American Jews have always been moderate in their views on Israel, and this is especially true for the young.
Of course, the fact that some national and umbrella bodies express hard-line sentiments that do not reflect majority opinion is not new. What is new and deeply disturbing is that local communal bodies are now following their lead. Proof of this trend, as reported in these pages earlier this month, is the willingness of some local Jewish federations to support and endorse events sponsored by Pastor John Hagee and his lobbying group, Christians United for Israel.
In March, when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee departed from past policy and gave Hagee a prime slot at its national convention in Washington, his new status in the Jewish community was confirmed. I am an admirer and supporter of Aipac, but this decision was a mistake for two reasons.
The first is the way that Hagee's appearance would be perceived on Capitol Hill. The central principle of Israel advocacy for half a century has been that support of Israel must be broad and bipartisan, and this means appealing to the Republican and Democratic mainstream and avoiding identification with controversial minorities in either party.
Second, and even more worrisome, was the question of how Hagee's Aipac speech would be interpreted by the Jewish community. My fear was that it would confer legitimacy on him and that local communities would be tempted to embrace him as Aipac had, in the process alienating many Jews, including most young Jews and this is precisely what has happened.
We know a great deal about Jewish young adults. We have learned from extensive research that these young people are often more socially liberal than their baby-boomer parents. They are pluralistic in their thinking, and they are tolerant of difference, especially differences in gender and sexual orientation.
They respond negatively to those who disparage other religious traditions and who make exclusivist religious claims. They are insistently centrist in their political views on the Middle East. And they are suspicious of a Jewish establishment that they see as too focused on money and insufficiently focused on values.
And so whom do we offer to these young people as a spokesman for Israel? John Hagee, who is contemptuous of Muslims, dismissive of gays, possesses a triumphalist theology and opposes a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If our intention was to distance our young adults from the Jewish state, we could not have made a better choice.
Even worse, a primary motive here seems to be that we see Hagee and his Christians United for Israel as a source of dollars for federation coffers. The pattern has been that in return for federation sponsorship of dinners hosted by the lobbying group, contributions are made by Christians United for Israel to our federation fundraising campaigns. The conclusion that our young people are most likely to draw from this arrangement is that we are simply selling our souls.
Let me be clear: I favor dialogue and extending a hand of friendship to Hagee and to all Evangelical Christians. Let's learn about each other and discuss areas of agreement and disagreement. I traveled to Liberty University last year to meet with the late Reverend Jerry Falwell for precisely this purpose. But there is a vast difference between respectful dialogue and an endorsement that makes John Hagee our community's champion of Israel.
Our federations are community organizations that operate on the principle of consensus. I urge our federations to conduct broad-based discussions to determine if a consensus really exists on endorsing Christians United for Israel events. Let's weigh if we are trading short-term advantage for long-term disaster. Let's ask if we are creating connections with Birthright that we are then tearing asunder with Hagee.
Let's consider if in return for temporary financial benefit, we are alienating those who will be our leaders and donors tomorrow. And while we make these decisions, let's remember that Israel is the most precious possession of the Jewish people and it belongs to us all.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie is president of the Union for Reform Judaism.




Comments: 37
I agree with you Patrick, the church is also called to preach the gospel to the jewish people are they too will perish in their sins. and yes i love to listen to Michael Medved and Dennis Prager. God bless them but they still both need to know the Lord Jesus the True Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
What did Paul say in Romans chapter one and two?
And yes i think that Israel in the middle east should be able to defend that country.
Hey Jason at work is two guys from Bosina. I hear one of them sometime saying, "the Jews". So i ask him what he means. I need to ask more, but i say to him that he is brainwashed". I think he is saying, in context he believes the Jews are reponsible for everthing.
I pray regularly for our soldiers, and and for the gospel to bear fruit in the Islamic world.
As for Mr. Hagee he also believes in the gifts of the spirit ... should we abandon this doctrine because we don't like the extremes he takes this doctrine to? Look the point is1000's of people before Hagee and LaHaye came along not only believed in the "secret" rapture (a very dismissive term ... Arnold Murray called it "the fly away doctrine" ... more irony for the observant) but used it to get off their couches and take the gospel to a world they thought could be "left behind" without warning to face God's wrath. I don't recall the Jews being the object of that wrath but rather unbelieving mankind of ALL nationalities. And while I am ranting .... dear God don't let me sub-reference again ... my ranting gets raves ... that Irish priest, Darby, one day took his collar off and started a movement that turned generations back to their Bibles and helped them to understand that each of them could understand the Bible with study and help from the spirit and not the village priest.
Padre
PS: Lest you all think I have it in for HH, actually I admire his stand on this issue. He is probably wrong, but he is sincere and I am sure it is costing this ministry dearly. A lot of his listeners and supporters are either steeped in various degrees of dispensationalism or sit under pastors who cut their theological teeth on this stuff. I have personally benefitted from Hank's ministry and one of my core values is his ... there are issues we should debate vigorously but not divide over.
Finally, the ultimate irony ... I confess when "Counterfiet Revival" came out I enjoyed watching my charismatic brethren squirm ... now it's not so much fun being on the hot seat now!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I did not mean to imply the gospel did not go forth before the 1830's. I was just commenting on the tremendous impact this teaching had and has today. Of course it doesn't prove or disprove its validity. A get a giggle out of the thought of Satan kicking himself after realizing what damage he has brought to his cause if he was responsible for starting this teaching, But then wouldn't that just be like God to make something good out of Satan's trickery.
Many in the dispensational camp wonder about this rebuilt temple and many have offered numeroues ideas from an understanding that the temple is just as it was in the OT ( a shadow of a heavenly temple} but with sacrifices as a memorial rather than a remission of sins. Personally, I have problems with the return to animal sacrifices during the millenial kingdom (not much of a golden age for them), but to be honest ... I just don't see a how the temple descibed in Ezekial is fulfilled by the rebuilt temple ... the description seems grander than Soloman's and yet from contemoporary accounts we are told it pailed by comparison. Perhaps the temple in the future will be an interactive object lesson and testamony to Jesus Christ where the nations can some and see how Christ is the literal cornerstone.
Padre
Yes there certainly is enough irony to go around! :-) Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify or expand a thought or two and perhaps ask a question.
I do not "apparently" hold to the secret rapture doctrine ... I embrace it! I just find the term dismissive. Sort of like someone accusing Paul of teaching a secret gospel. I am not going to divide over the issue ... but I confess it gives me hope and comfort. I do not put much stock in Darby, Scofield et al any more than I do any other man. So often I have found that good men have postulated sound ideas or rather maybe re-emphasized old ones only to then go off the rail in other areas. If I remember right Valentius taught something similar to pretrib rapture and then went off the rails to gnosticism. But before we dismiss Dr. V. Others have had similar charges brought against them. But I digress ... I read and I see two events described or contradictory descriptions of the same event! Perhaps I am wrong: I can live with that because neither view is going to change how I live. I am not responsible for the irresponsible things people do with this doctrine or if they use it to justify their sin. It is not an essential doctrine. Let me add however that if two peoples means two plans of salvation then this is ridiculous because there has always only been one plan of salvation.
An old prinipal of mine warned me to stay away from cognitive distortions such as always and never. To say not one person prior to 1830 help to a pretrib position is not supportable. You may find some and determine they are not credible, in your opinion, but remember to be fair.
Fianlly a question ... outside of Christ's fulfilment of prophecy, what other fulfilments do the NT writers record?
Padre
... and there is, I must admit, amoung some pretribbers an adversity that one day we may go through a period of intense trial or tribulation here in North America
I have not been avoiding you. I just went back to work after taking some time off and I have little time for recreational theology.
Adam thank you for the verses to look at. Please rest assured I am trying to look at things afresh outside of any "theological system". I don't see a division of races either but a division of mankind into believers and non-believers. As far as I can tell anyway the rapture followed by a seven year tribulation is to remove the church which consists of all believers (jew and gentile) before God begins a program that will culminate in His return to the earth in judgement. So I clearly don't see two plans of salvation. I see Israel being restored as a nation as a part of the end time picture but only as a part of the bigger millenial picture where Christ will reign over all of the nations. My view of the middle east therefore is not colored by my dispensational views because God is sovereign and i recognize that is they return to the land and make a go of it then God must be behind it. If the nation collapss tomorrow then ... ovey! I guess it wasn't meant to continue. My God is concerned with justice and so I do not excuse excesses on either side of this issue.
Lawrence
Sorry, I couldn't resist a little 70's flashback. Before I get into why I believe Christ will return for His church at the beginning of the tribulation period and again to the Earth at the end of it, let get something off my chest. What I believe is important and to a lesser degree why I believe it is also important. That is why I don't have "pet traditions". I came out of the world at the age of 16 to a new life in Christ and from almost the moment I was saved I was taught that I could read, study and understand the scripture with out the imposition of systems of theology or the traditions of man. And I did ... at times I even met with others who shared this same value and we discussed the scriptures ... not unlike the Bereans. Sometimes we accessed other resources but always understanding they were limited by man's wisdom. My point is that for almost 30 years I have studied the scriptures and yes even considered other views on this subject and dare I say it ... traditions. While my test for determining Christian orthodoxy is whether or not I would die for said doctrine ... this one comes close. So it is not a pet doctrine of mine easily dismissed because Hagee or someone else uses it foolishly or worse for selfish ends. Ideas have consequences. Just as you would not feel your position can be dismissed by connection with Arnold Murray because you hold a similar position on the rapture as his, I do not believe mine is either by connection to Hagee, Enyart or any other person wearing dispensational robes.
I believe the Church will be raptured (Jews and Gentiles ... like there is any difference today) and God will use the next 7 years to convict those "left behind" of their sin ... I think it's called grace. Jews and gentiles will be saved. but I digress. I believe in the rapture based on my understanding of 1st Thessalonians.
Lawrence
Thank you again for your considered responses.
Patrick, now that I know a little bit more about you I understand your position a little bit better ... so thanks for sharing. As a student of history I could n't help but notice a lot of "interesting" theology appears after the "Great Awakening" but I chalked it up to the enemy trying to confuse us with 10 lies for every truth. So one can look at this period with a jaundiced eye and say with conviction that it represents a time of little or no true revelation from God or a period of time in church history when despite some major errors being developed God still revealed to some important truths that spurred revival in many parts of the world.
Now I confess a little discomfort with the latter because it shows my bend towards progressive revelation ... but notice I use lower case letters. You see If I accept the idea that around roughly 1830 some faithful people rediscovered ( for lack of a better term ) the idea of pre-tribulation rapture then I have to allow for the possibility that 80 years later another group of the faithful rediscovered that tongues is the initial evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit. See my dilemma?
All of this to say that looking at the historical record, which is not inspired is problematic when supporting our theological positions. So to is interpreting scripture in light of our understanding of Biblical/Middle Eastern culture. Both can help, as can the writings of the early church fathers to help us apprehend better the truths of scripture ... but they remain at best minor characters in the drama of scriptural interpretation or worst harmful distractions that we can argue over endlessly.
I, for myself, do not practice "solo scriptora" ... I love the play on words though ... but as Hank says look to the panoply of scripture and as best as I can let scripture interpret scripture. For example when i come across something that is not clear I look for something that is clear to help me eliminate a number of possible interpretations. Baptism for the dead in just one example. I understand the Bible must be read with the understanding that it contains many different types of literature, each with its own characteristics. Fortunately for me I am an English Lit major. That's how I know Jesus isn't really a door with hinges and a knob and that eventually all metaphors break down! I also know that understanding the historical and cultural context are important .... BUT we must consider the sources of this information. Do we look for sources that support or interpretation or do we look for reliable sources? I look for the latter and you probably do to. But how do we know for sure? I find it exhausting.
I have found ... I don't mean to sound smug about this but, the Bible contains within its pages enough historical and cultural information to allow me to interpret the difficult passages or to lend depth to my shallow understanding of the deeper truths. I love reading about the early church and I believe we stand on the shoulders of giants that includes them, Luther. Calvin, Edwards, Wesley, Spurgeon, Darby, Moody, et al. But all of them are men and subject to the same spiritual ills as the rest of us.
Adam, I cannot begin to explain how thirty years of study has brought me to where I am on the "blessed hope" nor would I want to as I have no desire to prove you wrong. You could be right. But I do want to point out some things to you. First if every man were proven a liar and the only thing I had was my Bible and the Holy Spirit I believe that would be enough for salvation. And because we are all liars I can no more put my faith in the early church fathers than I can Creflo Dollar ... and he's just wrong. Nor can I put my faith in those who write about what the church fathers taught. I cannot put my faith in Unger or any one else who writes about church history or Biblical culture becuase they could be wrong. Nor can I put my faith in "Scofield's notes and Scripture Press".
Finally, please consider the implication of what you said about the implication and origins of a particular doctrine. Should we sin that grace may abound? This was the implication of his teaching that Paul had to contend with. Thank goodness he did not abandon his theology of salvation by grace and not works because some people took it the wrong way. The demoniac in Acts 8 cried "These men are the servants of the most high God!' Was she wrong? The "secret rapture" doctrine is often attributed (wrongly) to a so-called witch. The enemy is known to spout the truth as well as lies. While these are extreme examples and not intended to support my views they illustrate the pitfalls in determining truth by considering the source.
Patrick and Adam,
While I was considering your thoughts a question occured to me. Paul was executed before the destruction of the temple and "tradition" holds Revelations was written around 90 AD. Which books were written then after the death of Paul and the destruction of the temple and which books were written afterwards? Is there a significant period of time that passes in the first century where there seems to be "silence" in the area of inspired revelation? If there is ... could this explain why there is no description of this catastrophic event ... as the events are now long past in relation to the writing. Or does the lack of a gap show a progression of inspired revelation that does not concern itself with the need to restore the temple?
See my dilema?
Still stumblin' heavenward
Lawrence
That is absolutely fine. I am not the swiftest when it comes to responding to the posts of others. I look forward to your post.
in reference to your post to Adam, I understand your explanation about the two parts to the gospel ... the message and the mechanics. It is a useful distinction because it allows me to say unequivically that we agree on the message of the gospel while possibly differing on the mechanics. But that part, I must confess, remains a mystery to me nor much of a concern.
Lawrence
As for the early church I only meant to stress that they are one part of the constant debate that is a part of historical Christianity's attempt to define and defend orthodoxy. Proximity in time and space to a source do not guarantee doctrinal purity or accuracy as evidenced by Paul's neccesity to correct Peter.
Finally, let me say my belief in the blessed hope is not predicated on the validity of dispensationalism, I believe the return of Christ for HIs church, regardless of race, is iminent. AND has been for almost 2000 years. There remains nothing to be fulfilled for that to happen. The creation of the nation of Israel in 1948 is an excerise in God's sovereignty over the affairs of man and not the starting bell in a prophetic countdown. Perhaps we could focus on whether or not the belief in an iminent return requires a two stage return to the air and to the earth.
Lawrence