ASSEMBLY OF GOD (AOG) GENERAL COUNCIL TO VOTE ON RESOLUTION AGAINST ISRAEL~GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT GEORGE WOOD DENIES THE FACTS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Cedric Fisher
Truth Keepers
During the 57th Assemblies of God General Council in Anaheim, California, August 7-11, 2017,
the denomination’s membership will vote on Resolution 3. The Resolution
is presented as an affirmation that the church should be involved in
peace-keeping through conflict resolution. One is compelled to ask why
such a resolution is needed. As most denominations, the AoG already has
bylaws and leadership positions that promote peace and engage in
conflict resolution within the denomination. Apparently, Resolution 3
proposes to involve the membership in the affairs of races, religions,
and nations outside the denomination.
The General Council of the Assemblies of God,
district councils, and local churches should be involved in conflict
resolution between churches, denominations, races, religions, and
countries. We believe justice and peacemaking are necessary complements
of compassion ministries, and this should be clearly stated in our
Constitution. – Resolution 3, 57th General Council, August 7-11, 2017, Anaheim, California.
Some members are deeply concerned that the
Resolution will weaken and perhaps obliterate the denominations support
for Israel. I believe they have good cause for concern. The leadership
has already approved two position papers, “Church Mission and Peacemaking” and “Israel – the Church’s Response,”
both which negatively affect Israel. Those position papers are
essential to understanding the consequences of passing Resolution 3. (correction:
The “Israel – the Church’s Response is not a position paper, but rather
is an AoG article listed under AoG Beliefs “based upon [AoG] common
understanding of scriptural teaching.”
The New Paradigm
The amalgamation of those position papers and
Resolution 3 would establish a new paradigm regarding the denomination’s
view and treatment of Israel. The new paradigm aligns with the emerging
consensus of significant leaders in Christianity that insists Israel’s
biblical-based claims are responsible for unrest in the Mideast. They
are further convinced that evangelical support for Israel erroneously
strengthens those claims. Their solution is to diminish that support,
express sympathy with Muslims and Palestinians, and pressure Israel to
relinquish her biblical entitlements. This is evident in the insidious
statement in “Israel – the Church’s Response”:
And many Christians outside Israel seem bent
on assisting God in fulfilling His prophesied blessing on His chosen
people. – “Israel – the Church’s Response”
That reads like something right out of a
political Progressive emergent handbook. It implies that “Christians
outside Israel” are deceived or misguided. By whom? Israel? We are not
misguided, but informed by God’s word. Conversely, agreeing with or
sympathizing with Israel’s enemies actually assists Satan in fulfilling
his plan to oppress and annihilate Israel.
In “Church Mission and Peacemaking” under the
section, “Biblical Directives for Peacemaking,” the paper mentions
Israel’s historical apostasies and makes this provocative statement:
The great writing prophets of the Old
Testament severely condemned the dreadful social exploitation and
injustice of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in their prosperous but
declining years.
The references makes it clear that the authors
consider Israel to be the problem in accomplishing peace because of
their steadfast refusal to accept the demands of her enemies.
The new paradigm further emerges in the following statement:
Because of the contribution of the
patriarchs, of Jesus, and of the Jewish disciples to our Christian
faith, the Church is often viewed as being pro-Israel, and therefore
anti-Palestinian. But we must never forget our Christian Palestinian
brothers and sisters who suffer great terrors and hurts. But neither
should we forget the Jewish Christians and others who are caught in this
conflict. We must remember that millions on both sides of this
end-times conflict need to come to a faith in Jesus Christ. – “Israel –
the Church’s Response”
Because of what the Scriptures tell us, we as
Christian believers must stand by Israel and the Jewish people. That
does not mean that a Christian is against Palestinians who are genuine
Christians. However, we must be opposed to any attempt to oppress or
destroy Israel or divest her of biblical entitlements. Today, we are
witnessing a fast-growing change in attitude by Christian groups around
the world toward Israel and the Jews, one that is fueling anti-Semitism
and a general animosity toward them.
Rick Warrens P.E.A.C.E. plan
The new paradigm also appears to align with Rick
Warren’s P.E.A.C.E. plan and his concept of “religious pluralism.”
Warren’s idea is that Muslims and Christians should be partners in
working to end what he calls “the five global giants.” One of the things
Warren asks is how can Christians and Muslims work together to bring
peace to the world? The answer is by one or both religions to compromise
their belief systems and scheme to delegitimize Israel.
Warren’s overtures to Muslims and tenure on the
Council of Foreign Relation should discredit him as a model of
Christian leadership. However, the extent of his acceptance by AoG
leaders is astounding and perplexing. AoG General Superintendent George
O. Wood and other leaders of the denomination appear enamored with
Warren to the extent they are virtually subservient. That adulation is
also prevalent among the younger ministers. Many of the same individuals
are covertly or overtly involved in ecumenism. Could that be the reason
for a steady effort to bring the denomination into compliance with
Warren’s worldview? A necessary step would be to publically express
sympathy with Palestinians and Muslims.
Resolution 3 is an attempt to present a more
powerful statement of disassociation with Israel. Clearly, the AoG
leadership rejects the biblical view that Israel plays a special role in
God’s eschatological plan. It appears they have bought into the
politics of the political Progressives, the Seeker/Emergents, and Rick
Warren’s worldview. Whatever their motivation, it is without a doubt not
founded on a biblical mandate.
Is There a Biblical Basis for Peace in the End Times?
The questions are, “Can anyone except Christ
achieve peace on earth and should that be the church’s mission in these
last days?” Every student of eschatology understands that “war and
rumors of war” is a prophetic sign of the end times. A companion sign is
that all nations will oppose Israel. Sympathizing with Israel’s enemies
to end war encourages aggression against Israel. The authors of
Resolution 3 extend that sympathy under the guise of an alleged biblical
mandate for “the Church” to be involved in peacekeeping between
nations. Any peace that could come out of such an effort will be false
peace, which is one of the deceptions Antichrist will foist on the
world.
Resolution 3 authors attempt to provide a scriptural base for their claims:
However, the Scriptures strongly support
conflict resolution as an appropriate method to obtain peace when one is
wronged or has wronged another. – Resolution 3
All the biblical references they provide for
support of the Resolution are primarily about personal relationships and
harmony among God’s people. Also, consider that none of the verses
concern eschatology. The verses they use cannot be co-opted to endorse
sympathy for Israel’s enemies without violating the spirit of the
exegesis. The authors are, in fact, using God’s Word to support
spiritually fatal compromise. Further, I must point out that rejecting
Israel’s claims that are solidly based on unambiguous Scriptures, while
establishing a contradictory narrative based on ambiguous scriptural
references, is patently duplicitous. It is the stuff of heresy.
Christ declared that He did not come to bring peace (Matthew 10:34).
There cannot be peace between light and darkness. There can be no peace
or ecumenism between diabolical religions and true Christianity.
Neither will there be peace between Israel and her enemies. Let us not
forget that God’s adversary, Satan, hates Christians, and he hates the
Jews and Israel.
Additionally, peace cannot exist in a community
when a church takes upon itself to solve every conflict. God’s Word
actually has something to say about that bad decision:
He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him,is like one that taketh a dog by the ears. – Proverbs 26:17
Authors of Resolution 3
Finally, it is important to consider the
authors of Resolution 3. It was difficult to discover if all of them
were credentialed with the Assemblies of God. References to being AoG
ministers or working in organizations connected to the denomination are
missing in most of the source material.
The chairperson of the Resolution committee is Donald H, Detrick.
Detrick’s wife, Jodie Detrick, is a Life Coach and supporter of
contemplative spirituality. Mrs. Detrick wrote the AoG defense of
inviting New Age guru Ruth Haley Barton to speak at the General Council
in Orlando, Florida.
Concerning the authors of Resolution 3, the following is a sampling of information easily available on the Internet:
J. Ross Byars: Co-founder of
Jerusalem School Bethlehem on the West Bank, “Impacting the Arab World
with the message of hope through education.” The school delivers to
mostly Palestinian youth the “Good News of the Gospel delivered through a
culturally-relevant lens.” The pacifism of Martin Luther King, Nelson
Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi are taught. The schools “takes an ecumenical
approach because most of its students are Muslims.” – Haaretz.com, “Think Palestinian Schools Preach Violence? Visit This One,” July 22, 2017
Furthermore, JSB teaches a mystical teaching,
the concept of the ‘inner eye,’ from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, Kabbalist
and the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi in British Mandatory Palestine. –
ibid
Robert E. Cooley: President
Emeritus and former Professor of Biblical Studies and Archaeology of
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminar. Dr. Cooley was a consultant on the
merging of the Assemblies of God schools in Springfield. I advise
individuals to watch his YouTube video about the leadership challenges
of globalization and social diversification of communities, “Evangelical
Leadership in the 21st Century” January 30, 2015. I also encourage
reading “The Future of the Christian University: An Interview with Dr.
Robert E. Cooley” on Pathos.com. Cooley advocates a new paradigm by
Christianity regarding its association with nations and religions. His
involvement with Resolution 3 defines more clearly what he means by that
advocacy.
Murray W. Dempster: Professor of Social Ethics, Southeastern University, Lakeland, Florida. Author of Christian Concern in Pentecostal Perspective: Reformulating Pentecostal Eschatology, Called and Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective, and other books.
Robert W. Houlihan: Professor
of Practical Ministry and Missions at Southwestern University. Houihan
wrote, “Another area that has caused some concerns for Pentecostals in
recent years is the realization that the early Pentecostals
overemphasized evangelism and neglected cultural sensitivity and the
social and justices issues for the poor. . . . More recently Pentecostal
scholars such as Murray Dempster have created a framework to help
missionaries reflect on the biblical text and provide them with a social
ethic to undergird their social practices.” – Robert Houlihan;
“Theological Education in a Cross-Cultural Context: Essays in Honor of
John and Bea Carter; Accessing Missional Ministries in the Pentecostal
Church: A Trial of Overemphasis on Evangelism.”
Nam Soo Kim: Pastor of Promise
Church and Promise Ministries International, Seoul, South Korea. PMI
considers itself as a ministry to the world’s 1.85 billion children. Not
much is publically known about Kim. I could not discover any
significant involvement or contributions to the AoG. As with most of the
other authors, he seems to be involved with activity outside of the
denomination.
Russell P. Spittler: Senior professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary. Author of Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism, Charismatic Christianity as a Global Culture, and other books. Spittler wrote in support of Murray Dempster’s book, Called and Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective:
“An unprecedented mix of pentecostal theology and mission practice,
virtually a manifesto for pentecostal missions. . . . The fullest and
finest missiological treatise originating within classical
Pentecostalism available.”–Russell P. Spittler
Prophecy is Being Fulfilled
In conclusion, I must point out that Rome
changed the name of Judea to Palestine in 136 A.D. Islam did not arrive
until about the 7th century A.D. Christianity is a religion that
originated with a Jewish man, Christ Jesus the Son of God. The church is
established on Jewish disciples of Christ with Him as the Cornerstone.
Historically and evidentiary, there is no basis for any attempt to
dispose Israel of her biblical heritage and rights.
Therefore, to embrace the Palestinian and
Muslim cause and reject Israel is, in essence, to be anti-Semitic. Thus,
the AoG’s positions papers and Resolution 3 is oxymoronic in
presentation and factitious in intent. It is an effort to unite the 60
million-member worldwide denomination with other denominations and
political groups that are openly hostile to Israel. That is not peace
keeping, but quite the opposite. It is meddling in affairs that the true
church, the Body of Christ, has no biblical mandate to become involved
in. Furthermore, it is compromise of the worst sort during the worst
period in Israel’s history and likely to help trigger an unprecedented
military attack on Israel.
What we are witnessing is the formation of the
False Prophet’s global church and the dark kingdom of Antichrist.
Prophecy is racing toward fulfillment. Christianity’s leaders and
theologians are more concerned about the relevance of Christianity, its
political position in the world system, and the numerical value of
Christendom than about standing uncompromisingly for God’s truth. I do
believe that some professing Christians feel intense pressure to
compromise and thereby avoid being ostracized or even persecuted.
It is time to wake up and heed God’s Word. Love
for truth is dissipating as fog in the morning sun. Convenient yet
false interpretations of God’s Word are being duplicitously presented as
new truth. The resulting false conclusions are leading to a dangerous
and perhaps eternally fatal pragmatism.
Related Material:
ISRAEL: REPLACING WHAT GOD HAS NOT
Reminder: What Lighthouse Trails Believes About Israel and the Jews
The Berean Call Conference: Israel in the Line of Fire
DVD Exposes “Christian Palestinianism” and the Evangelical Leaders Promoting It
_______________________________________________________
Dr. George Wood Responds to Lighthouse Trails Article on AoG Resolution 3 and Israel
SEE: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletters/2017/newsletter20170801.htm#1A2;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By the Editors at Lighthouse Trails
On July 28th, Lighthouse Trails posted a commentary by Lighthouse Trails author Cedric Fisher titled “Assembly of God (AOG) General Council to Vote on Resolution Against Israel.”
This commentary set off a fire storm on the Internet, and on Saturday
July 29th, Lighthouse Trails editors received an e-mail from Dr. George
Wood (General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God). Dr. Wood is
familiar with Lighthouse Trails because of a controversy in 2013 where
Dr. Wood gave his blessing and permission for contemplative emergent
Ruth Haley Barton to speak at the 2013 AoG General Council Conference
resulting in some Lighthouse Trails articles addressing the seriousness
of such promotion.
Shortly after Lighthouse Trails editors
received the e-mail from Dr. Wood on the 29th regarding our recent
posting of Cedric Fisher’s commentary, we learned that the e-mail was
being distributed on the Internet. Because Dr. Wood has made his e-mail
public, we are responding in the public arena; and because his e-mail
stated that the commentary we posted is “false, meretricious, and
slanderous,” we are compelled to issue this response. Below is Dr.
Wood’s e-mail to Lighthouse Trails editors in its entirety (in black
bold) along with response comments by us in indented non-bold
paragraphs. (After you have read this section, please see a response
written by Cedric Fisher regarding Dr. Wood’s e-mail.)
Dr. George Wood’s e-mail to Lighthouse Trails:
I don’t know exactly who to address this to, so I have included all the email contact points provided on your website.
I am asking you to retract and
apologize for the totally incorrect article you published on July 28,
titled, “Commentary: Assembly of God (AOG) General Council to Vote on
Resolution Against Israel.”
Here are the facts, as opposed to the lies given by Cedric Fisher.
1. Resolution 3 doesn’t mention Israel
at all. It has nothing to do with Israel. As general superintendent, I
am not indicating my support or opposition to this resolution as it
comes from delegates to our General Council – but, I can tell you for a
fact that you can search this resolution with a microscope and you will
find no reference to Israel, nor will you find any intention that this
resolution applies to Israel. Here’s the full text of the resolution: http://generalcouncil.ag.org/-/media/GC17/2017GCResolutionsBooklet.pdf?la=en.
Our Response: It is true
that Resolution 3 does not mention Israel at all, and Cedric Fisher
never said that it did. However, the resolution absolutely connects
Israel with the Resolution when it states: “Furthermore, the Commission
on Doctrinal Purity and the General Presbytery approved the 12
Assemblies of God position paper entitled, ‘Church Mission and Peacemaking.’”
It is in that position paper that Israel is discussed and clearly
rebuked as the guilty party for causing conflict. There is no mention of
Islamic/Muslim wrong doing in the position paper. We realize that some
reading “Church Mission and Peacemaking” may not see how it is
implicating modern-day Israel, especially if they are not familiar with
the present efforts to put most or all of the blame on Israel for Middle
East conflict.
2. The AG position paper is titled,
“Church Mission and Peacemaking.” Lighthouse Trails added “and Israel,”
even though the position paper doesn’t mention issues regarding the
modern state of Israel. Here’s the position paper: https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index/Church-Mission-and-Peacemaking.
Our Response: The phrase
“and Israel” was mistakenly added twice in one sentence. We have now
corrected that error. However, this does not change the context of the
position paper. Dr. Wood says that the position paper doesn’t mention
issues regarding the modern state of Israel, but we believe that is
exactly what that position paper is doing.
3. “Israel–the Church’s Response” is
not a position paper. It’s what we call a “common concerns” article. It
was written by the Office of Public Relations over 15 years ago. Here’s
the article itself: https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index/Israel-the-Churchs-Response. Here’s the topic index of other common concern articles: https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index.
Our Response: Cedric
Fisher’s commentary did call both papers “position papers” when in
reality “Israel – The Church’s Response” is not an official AoG position
paper. Rather, it is listed under AoG Beliefs on their website and
described as “based upon [AoG] common understanding of scriptural
teaching.” (source: https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index)
4. By mixing quotations from the
position paper and the common concerns article, Lighthouse Trails
concocts a belief that simply doesn’t exist.
Our Response: We don’t agree
with Dr. Wood’s assumption here. To say that an argument can’t be
proven by using different credible (and related) documents is faulty
reasoning.
5. The article goes on to talk about
Rick Warren’s PEACE plan, which is NOT mentioned in Resolution 3, the
position paper, or the common concerns article. It then states,
“Resolution 3 is an attempt to present a more powerful statement of
disassociation with Israel.” But Resolution 3 doesn’t mention the
contemporary state of Israel at all, let alone “a more powerful statement of disassociation with Israel.” This is simply a lie.
Our Response: As for Rick
Warren’s influence within the AoG, this could be proven in a number of
different ways (not to mention that he is one of the keynote speakers at
this year’s AoG General Council along with Mark Batterson (Circle Maker) and Priscilla Shirer (contemplative teacher)), but we will provide this one piece of documentation. In a 2008 Time Magazine article titled “Rick Warren Goes Global,” it states:“Warren is particularly excited by the
hands-on involvement of some of the larger players in the Evangelical
community. “A guy was going, ‘I’ll take Mozambique,’ and another guy was
going ‘I’ll take Nigeria,’ ” he said happily, adding that he’s already secured personal commitments from influential leaders in the Salvation Army and the Assemblies of God
(the largest Pentecostal denomination.) “They’ve said, they’re in, and
they have to get their boards along,” he reported.” (emphasis added;
source: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1809833,00.html?xid=rss-nation).Since 2008, the Purpose Driven paradigm has
continued to have a major influence in nearly all evangelical
denominations, including Assemblies of God.Regarding Dr. Wood’s statement that it is a
lie to say that Resolution 3 is anti-Israel, it is not. This resolution
was worded in such a way as to not appear to be directly implicating
modern Israel.
6. “AoG General Superintendent George
O. Wood and other leaders of the denomination appear enamored with
Warren to the extent they are virtually subservient.” That would be news
to me, Rick Warren, and other leaders of the denomination. Furthermore,
there is no denomination more active than ours in evangelizing Muslims.
See our response in point #5.
7. As is typical of Lighthouse Trails,
you engage in six-degrees-of-separation conspiracy mongering. Even
though neither Don nor Jodi Detrick wrote Resolution 3, he is mentioned
because he is married to her, and she is mentioned because she allegedly
promotes “contemplative spirituality.” This isn’t research; this is
nonsense.
Our Response: Actually,
Cedric Fisher’s mentioning Jodi Detrick because she is the wife of the
chairperson of the AoG 2017 Resolutions Committee is certainly not
“six-degrees-of-separation conspiracy mongering.” First of all, this is a
husband and wife who are both highly active in AoG leadership; this is
hardly “six-degrees of separation.” Second, the issue that took place
with Dr. Wood and the AoG General Council in May of 2013 was no minor
issue. Dr. Wood allowed Ms. Detrick to bring in a hard core New Age
sympathizer to teach AoG women at the AoG General Council Conference
that year. Lighthouse Trails wrote three carefully documented articles
explaining several aspects as to why Barton should not be allowed to
teach Christian women. After our first article (http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=11431),
Dr. Wood issued a public statement defending Ms. Detrick’s choice of
speakers (and he incidentally mentioned Ms. Detrick’s husband as he felt
the association was important for people to know – the very thing he
condemned Cedric Fisher for doing). Our second article in 2013 included
Dr. Wood’s response defending the choice of Ruth Haley Barton (http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=11554).
Incidentally, Cedric Fisher (a former AoG pastor who was not an LT
author at that time) wrote an article addressing the issue with Barton (http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=11569). He made some very valid points, and his article from 2013 is worth reading to better understand the dilemma.We believe it was appropriate for Cedric
Fisher to mention the Wood/Detrick/Barton event that took place four
years ago because from years of researching the contemplative prayer
movement, we know that one of the “fruits” of contemplative prayer is a
shift in attitude regarding Israel. While there have always been those
(such as those in the Reformed camp) who have historically rejected
Israel of having significance according to a biblically prophetic view
and adhere to Replacement Theology, there is also now a growing number
of evangelicals who are moving from a pro-Israel stance to an
anti-Israel stance, and many of those evangelicals have first embraced
the contemplative prayer movement. Is this just a coincidence? We don’t
believe so. Those who practice contemplative meditation, over time,
begin to change their views on the Atonement, the Cross, salvation, and
even Israel and the Jews because the meditation experience is
panentheistic (God in all) and interspiritual (all paths lead to God) in
nature; and when one begins to accept panentheism and
interspirituality, the Cross, the Atonement, salvation through Christ
alone, and Bible prophecy (which includes understanding Israel and the
return of Christ) do not fit into that mold any longer.Dr. Wood resents the fact that Jodi Detrick
name was mentioned in Cedric Fisher’s article, so much so that he has
resorted to ugly name calling. We fear that Dr. Wood does not understand
these vital issues, and that is why he is lashing out.
8. The article about Ross Byar’s school
is hilarious. Ross teaches “pacifism,” not “passivism.” And do
evangelical Christians really want to go on record opposing the teaching
of pacifism to MUSLIM students? Additionally, the Haaretz.com article
cited doesn’t report that Byars’ school advocates “inner eye” mysticism.
It says that on the day the journalist visited, they were learning
about the mysticism of an important modern Jewish rabbi. A good
education acquaints people accurately with the beliefs of others. LTR
makes that look suspicious.
Our Response: Dr. Wood better read that article at Haaretz.com again.
It clearly states that the teacher at Byar’s school is introducing and
advocating a mystical spirituality to the students. The article states:“Today, in fact, she’s [the teacher] trying to introduce the students to a mystical teaching
from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi in
British Mandatory Palestine. The big idea is his concept of the “inner
eye,” and Talesnick [the teacher] wants to suggest that if you can see with it, you’re color blind. It’s a good lesson against racism.”Cedric Fisher stated it accurately when he said the school was advocating a mystical teaching.
9. I could pick apart the article’s
references to the six authors of Resolution 3–all of whom I know
personally or at least know of–but I’ll just quote this hilarious
statement about Nam Soo Kim: “I could not discover any significant
involvement or contributions to the AoG. As with most of the other
authors, he seems to be involved with activity outside of the
denomination.” For the record, Nam Soo Kim is an executive presbyter of
the national Assemblies of God, a fact that is easily found on the AG
website: https://ag.org/About/Leadership-Team/Executive-Presbytery.
Our Response: The fact that
Cedric Fisher did not know of Nam Soo Kim’s involvement with AoG is a
moot point, but we accept the correction. However, there is one author
of Resolution 3 that we do know about, and that is Murray
Dempster. In 2007, 80 evangelical leaders signed a document titled “An
Evangelical Statement on Israel/Palestine.” A November 2007 Christianity Today article titled “Evangelical Leaders Reiterate Call for Two-State Solution for Israel and Palestine” discussed the document and listed Murray Dempster as one of the signatories. The article stated:“[O]ver 80 evangelical leaders have signed a
statement indicating their belief ‘that the way forward is for the
Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a fair, two-state solution.’”
(source: http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2007/november/148-33.0.html (For a list of Dempster’s credentials that include the signing of this two-state solution document, see http://www.seu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MWD-Resume-Updated-SEU-8.1.2013.pdf)We find this unnerving that a man, Dempster,
who is a signatory for a document that calls for a two-state solution,
is also a contributing author and endorser to this AoG resolution that
has the potential of invoking great harm to the Jewish people; and it is
equally troubling that the head of AoG is perfectly OK with this. He
says that he knows all of them personally or at least knows of
them—insinuating that this makes them all legitimate). According to one
Jewish Christian radio host we spoke with this morning, a two-state
solution would “legitimize” a Palestinian State filled with brutal
terrorists who want to destroy Israel. What in the world is AoG doing
playing with this kind of fire?! Cedric Fisher provided us with some
thought-provoking comments today on the two-state solution:“Some evangelical leaders insist there is
nothing wrong with the Two-State Solution. They claim that Israel
advocates a Two-State Solution. If that were true, then it would have
already occurred and we would not be having this controversy. There is a
vast difference between the versions of Two-State Solutions. Israel’s
version could be summed up as, “You leave us alone, and we’ll leave you
alone.” Conversely, the Two-State Solution advocated by certain
evangelicals is to moderate a resolution between Israel and Palestine
that involves Israel giving up the West Bank, its biblical heritage as
God’s Chosen People, and other untenable concessions. There is an
effort to dismiss Israel from eschatology and brand it as just another
sinful nation.“These leaders cannot understand why true
supporters of Israel view them as anti-Semitic. They claim they are not
anti-Semitic but rather that they also support Israel. They obviously
do not support the Israel that exists, but the “Israel” they have
modeled for their peace plan. I invite the reader to read the
literature of these so-called pacifists for “peace.” If they supported
Israel as it presently exists, they would not be sympathetic to the
Muslim narrative and attempt to coerce Israel to accept a
pro-Palestinian Two-State Solution.
10. This conclusory statement is an
outright lie: “Therefore, to embrace the Palestinian and Muslim cause
and reject Israel is, in essence, to be anti-Semitic. Thus, the AoG’s
positions papers and Resolution 3 is oxymoronic in presentation and
factitious in intent. It is an effort to unite the 60 million-member
worldwide denomination with other denominations and political groups
that are openly hostile to Israel.” None of the AG links the author has
provided–to Resolution 3, our position paper, or even our common
concerns article–embrace Islam, reject Israel, or exhibit antisemitism.
The World Assemblies of God Fellowship numbers 68.5 million adherents,
not 60 million (https://ag.org/About/Statistics), but the author can’t
even get this basic statistic right. And I am unaware of any member
nation of the WAGF that’s “openly hostile to Israel.” I certainly am not
– having been to Israel over 40 times and having established the
Assemblies of God Center for Holy Lands Studies that has brought
thousands to Israel – including hundreds of students preparing for the
ministry.
Our response: We stand
behind Cedric Fisher’s closing comments. We believe AoG is facing a real
threat, and the fact that their head cannot see this and has no problem
with Resolution 3 is scary at best.
You should have regard for truth. But, you [do] not.
The article you published is false, meretricious, and slanderous. You should be ashamed.
Finally, there is a process in our
Constitution and Bylaws by which members can present resolutions. The
authors of resolutions have no guarantee that what they propose will be
adopted; but, our Bylaws make provision for members to have that right.
Our Response: The men who
wrote Resolution 3 are leaders in the AoG, not some renegades who have
no influence in the denomination. Without intending on sounding
disrespectful, the shame goes to AoG leaders who are involved in trying
to pass Resolution 3 and to Dr. Wood, not Cedric Fisher and Lighthouse
Trails.
Response to George Wood’s E-mail from Cedric Fisher:
I wish to thank Dr. Wood for taking time out of
his busy schedule to respond to my commentary. Since Dr. Wood has
insisted on more information, I will respectfully honor his request.
First, I concede that Resolution 3 does not
contain the word “Israel,” and I never stated that it did. However, it
contains the reference to a position paper that does mention Israel.
Additionally, although “Israel—the Church’s Response” is not an official
position paper, it is a position officially assigned to the “Church”
and included under “Beliefs” on the AoG website. Further, Resolution 3
is presented as being about peacekeeping, but the statement it proposes to add to the Constitution includes justice and peacemaking. Here is why that is important.
We must ask, “What nations in conflict did the authors of R3 have in mind when they wrote the Resolution?”
The only nation in conflict that the majority
of evangelicals are focused on is Israel. Regarding the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the terms justice and peacekeeping
are interpreted by the worldview of whoever employs them. Some
evangelicals consider Israel “unjust” and even “racist” in their
dealings with Palestinians. I propose that the conflict is not because
Israel is unjust, racist, or rejects peace. It exists because her
neighbors wish to annihilate her as stated in the following:
I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land. (Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, The Jerusalem Post)
The solution that political Progressives,
Liberals, Palestinian sympathizers, denominations, and some leading
evangelical “pacifists” propose is a two-state solution. That attempt at
“justice and peacemaking” would devastate Israel. Standing in the way
of a two-state solution is the traditional, biblical, eschatological
view that most evangelicals hold dear. There is currently a massive
effort underway throughout Christianity to neutralize and eject that
view from evangelicalism. The result, unintended or perhaps intended, is
that anti-Semitism has reared its ugly head in evangelicalism.
Therefore, we are wary of overtures of justice and peacemaking
by individuals who have been involved in efforts to impose a two-state
solution on Israel. Is it the intent of R3 authors to legitimize a
worldview that undermines historical evangelical support for Israel in
the name of justice and peacemaking? We can help answer that question by
taking a look at some of R3’s authors.
R3 author Murray Dempster is considered by some
of his peers as the “‘Grandfather of Modern Pentecostal Pacifism.”
Dempster was a signer of the document “An Evangelical Statement on Israel/Palestine” that proposes a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He also signed a letter to President George Bush in July 29, 2007, calling for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict that includes the vast majority of the West Bank.
Dempster is professor of social ethics at Assemblies of God Southeastern University. An online blog post titled, “Liberal Theology at Assemblies of God University?”
features the testimony by David Thrower expressing concern about the
influence of the Emergent Church and “progressive” adherents that
question the supremacy of God and the authority and veracity of His Word
at Southeastern. Thrower mentioned Dempster touting liberal theologian
James Cone. However, deeply troubling was his observation concerning
rampant anti-Semitism that included an on-campus lecture by
pro-Palestine advocate Sami Awad. At one point in the lecture, Awad had
very anti-Semitic comments mentioning that Israel did not have a right
to exist. – Chelsen Vicari, Juicy Ecumenism blog; December 18, 2014, https://juicyecumenism.com/2014/12/18/squishy-theology-assembly-gods-southeastern-university/
Another R3 author, Robert E. Cooley, signed the Yale “A Common Word” Christian Response document http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-christian-response. Among the signers is Rick Warren, one of the speakers at the upcoming 57th General Council in Anaheim. The document begins:
As members of the worldwide Christian
community, we were deeply encouraged and challenged by the recent
historic open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars, clerics, and
intellectuals from around the world. “A Common Word Between Us and You”
identifies some core common ground between Christianity and Islam which
lies at the heart of our respective faiths as well as at the heart of
the most ancient Abrahamic faith, Judaism.
The document also stated:
Before we “shake your hand” in responding to
your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One [a name for the
Muslim god] and of the Muslim community around the world. . . . That so
much common ground exists—common ground in some of the fundamentals of
faith—gives hope that undeniable differences and even the very real
external pressures that bear down upon us can not overshadow the common
ground upon which we stand together.
As I pointed out in my commentary, R3 author
Robert W. Houlihan and Russell P. Spittler have made statements in
support of Dempster.
How can I or anyone who is willing to take a
serious look at this situation conclude that R3 is anything other than
an attempt to undermine evangelical support for Israel?
Related Information:
The Berean Call Conference: Israel in the Line of Fire
DVD Exposes “Christian Palestinianism” and the Evangelical Leaders Promoting It
Chrislam – The Blending Together of Islam & Christianity
Another Look: Has the Church Replaced Israel?