I get grief from evangelicals, especially if they believe in the 'end times' theology, the 'rapture', 'premillenialism' etc. .. which many US Christians do. They think they have to buy into 'Israel' because of the Old Testament, prophecy fulfilment, etc.
There is no telling what it is in them that blinds them to the glaringly obvious evil and immorality of the genocide in Gaza, but we are where we are, and if an ad hominem argument is the only thing that will make them start to think ..
I usually say something like: 'In the Old Testament / Jewish Bible, from at least the time of Samuel, the leaders of Israel are being denounced by the prophets. For most of that time, the question is "Which Israel" .. which is the true Israel .. is it the Israel of a corrupt government, corrupt kings, is it the northern kingdom of Samaria or the southern kingdom of Judah?" The idea that the Old Testament gives a blanket ok to whoever happens to be king / president / war leader of the state depends entirely on ignoring the Old Testament.'
It's not going to work often, but I've seen it work. I've seen the 'Oh', moment, the flicker of a light coming on. At that point, sometimes, you can start to appeal to basic human decency.
Good for you. We need every possible approach to deal with this moral blindness. I think I want to know what any of these so-called Christians think Satan could make them do that would be more evil than getting them to support genocide.
You are wasting your breath. If a person's eschatology is so shallow and transactional that they can't discern the obvious contradiction, they just don't want to. You can have a polite intellectual conversation around the associated merits of pre vs post or amillenailism. But you can't have a polite conversation with someone when the objective reality is as blatantly evil as the situation in Gaza. To argue in good faith we have to be able to at least agree on the initial starting point of the person we are arguing with, if its to be in good faith. Someone that is able to reject reality, insert or interpret truth in a way that fundamentally fails to respect the validity of all life, you have no framework to even begin the debate.
Throughout most of human history we have seen that often, mostly, resolution is not reached through reason or logical persuasion. That's why the world has been defined by war and atrocities of one people or group against another. For some reason, maybe because of the intentional illusion created to pacify the masses, we have forgotten that. Those in control have not. They use the many tools at thier disposal, to include laws and media, to shape the narrative, and crush dissent.
Violence may not be the course we would choose, but the leaders in power know that modern people are reluctant, afraid of the implications of direct action..so can be cowed into wringing their hands as their lords and masters do what they want. Attention will likely fade, people will revert to the partisan games with democracies illusion of choice.
Again, not saying force is the only answer, its just been the one most employed.
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor."
Some revolutions come at gunpoint, for sure; 'successful' is harder to measure. But regime change comes more often from peaceful protest.. Check the research by Chenoweth et. al. Peaceful protest is consistently more effective than violent.
The Trotsky line at Brest Litovsk, which you seem to be alluding to, is about power: Obviously closely related to revolution, which is often carried out by force, but Trotsky was speaking as the representative of a regime that had already consolidated control. He was talking about international relations, not internal revolution.
I'm in Scotland. Violent revolution well in our past. Plenty of us out on the streets in favour of Independence from England, but sadly we haven't made it to 3.5% yet. Pitchforks did fine at Bannockburn, but they weren't up to it at Culloden.
Oddly enough, I am reading I Kings at the moment. I have read it many times before, but reading it in 2025 is somewhat different from reading 20 or 10 years ago - at least for me, because of what is happening in Gaza, but also among a lot of my Christian friends.
And on the subject of evangelicals, it is worth remembering that a lot of evangelicals are not into Zionism. John Stott, arguably the most influential evangelical in the UK in the 20th century, said that "Political Zionism and Christian Zionism are anathema to Christian faith."
I heard and read John Stott in the 70s. Certainly one of the most important English evangelicals of his time. But how representative, I'm not so sure. Yes in UCCF / Inter Varsity circles (I'm a former UCCF staffer) less so in working class nonconformist settings (like the one I knew before uni).
There are two issues, though, to qualify what you say about evangelicals and Zionism: first, those who identify as evangelical in the US are overwhelmingly into dispensationalism. There is data on that one. Second, and this is just my impression: I was brought up on a kind of 'twin pillars' form of evangelicalism, which was common to Anglican / university / low-church settings: one pillar being the authority of scripture, the other being penal substitution .. itself resting on a 'biblical' base. I've been around evangelicals from the 70s to now and my impression is that evangelicals now overwhelmingly focus on penal substition and the notion of biblical authority has dropped away. I know fellowships where penal substition and a kind of Keswick spirituality is claimed as biblical, but there is very little exposure to the full extent of the biblical text, and a positive antipathy to any critical thinking about it. I'm sure John Stott, Jim Packer et. al. would be horrified by it, but that's what I now most often encounter. There always was an anti-intellectual streak in evangelicalism, but it's become the norm in the UK, and even more aggressively so in the US.
In my experience UK evangelicals decry US evangelicalism but have no clue how similar evangelicalism actually is either side of the Atlantic. You only have to look at the personalities, from Billy Graham onward, through to James Dobson and John Piper to Pete Greig, and at the publishing houses, and at the headline issues .. homosexuality, 'pro-life', etc. All transatlantic.
This will all seem irrelevant, I guess, to those who never knew the ecosystem, but for those of us who grew up in it, this stuff is pretty critical. And much as we might dislike him, Bannon is right, that culture is upstream of politics, and for many people theology is upstream of culture.
Well, John Stott thought for himself, so I guess he can't have been very representative. But yes - he obviously was influential in UCCF circles - which would explain why IVP published Stephen Sizer.
" . . . my impression is that evangelicals now overwhelmingly focus on penal substition and the notion of biblical authority has dropped away." Interesting comment. I'm guessing that it hasn't dropped away much in UCCF - but it is certainly true that for many people, theology is downstream of culture. (I am guessing that you meant to write downstream.) So I guess the question is "Whatever happened to evangelical theology?"
No, I meant upstream. The more Luddite the theology the worse the pollution downstream.
Whatever happened to evangelical theology is still a good question. There will always be slivers of light, but I think on the one hand there's the theobros / Reformed attack dogs, and on the other hand .. probably there are a lot of hands. It's a long time since David wrote that book.
UCCF is not what it was. I recall a Council strategy weekend in the mid 80s with a few of the older generation still around, Oliver Barclay and one or two older than him. They could recall the early ethos of trying to reclaim the universities intellectually. We all knew that was long gone. CUs were about evangelism. A few years later KLICE (Kirby Lang Institute for Christian Ethics) .. a UCCF-founded institution, detached from UCCF when UCCF refused to publicise KLICE events on the grounds that thinking theologically about ethics wasn't really what they wanted to encourage. Tyndale detached about the same time. So that's pretty clear-cut evidence of dumbing down. And now UCCF has its own scandals, HR abuses rather than sexual, which is some comfort .. they have a long, long track record of treating staff appallingly.
But we've drifted a long way from Caitlin's post and maybe should avoid a UCCF rabbit-hole.
I get grief from evangelicals, especially if they believe in the 'end times' theology, the 'rapture', 'premillenialism' etc. .. which many US Christians do. They think they have to buy into 'Israel' because of the Old Testament, prophecy fulfilment, etc.
There is no telling what it is in them that blinds them to the glaringly obvious evil and immorality of the genocide in Gaza, but we are where we are, and if an ad hominem argument is the only thing that will make them start to think ..
I usually say something like: 'In the Old Testament / Jewish Bible, from at least the time of Samuel, the leaders of Israel are being denounced by the prophets. For most of that time, the question is "Which Israel" .. which is the true Israel .. is it the Israel of a corrupt government, corrupt kings, is it the northern kingdom of Samaria or the southern kingdom of Judah?" The idea that the Old Testament gives a blanket ok to whoever happens to be king / president / war leader of the state depends entirely on ignoring the Old Testament.'
It's not going to work often, but I've seen it work. I've seen the 'Oh', moment, the flicker of a light coming on. At that point, sometimes, you can start to appeal to basic human decency.
God, please save me from your followers, all of them.
Ok. Propagandist Muppet 🤮.
Good for you. We need every possible approach to deal with this moral blindness. I think I want to know what any of these so-called Christians think Satan could make them do that would be more evil than getting them to support genocide.
You might enjoy learning from Kayse Malone a scholar on Christian Zionism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIo0AdCMMSs
thanks, that looks really interesting
You are wasting your breath. If a person's eschatology is so shallow and transactional that they can't discern the obvious contradiction, they just don't want to. You can have a polite intellectual conversation around the associated merits of pre vs post or amillenailism. But you can't have a polite conversation with someone when the objective reality is as blatantly evil as the situation in Gaza. To argue in good faith we have to be able to at least agree on the initial starting point of the person we are arguing with, if its to be in good faith. Someone that is able to reject reality, insert or interpret truth in a way that fundamentally fails to respect the validity of all life, you have no framework to even begin the debate.
Throughout most of human history we have seen that often, mostly, resolution is not reached through reason or logical persuasion. That's why the world has been defined by war and atrocities of one people or group against another. For some reason, maybe because of the intentional illusion created to pacify the masses, we have forgotten that. Those in control have not. They use the many tools at thier disposal, to include laws and media, to shape the narrative, and crush dissent.
Violence may not be the course we would choose, but the leaders in power know that modern people are reluctant, afraid of the implications of direct action..so can be cowed into wringing their hands as their lords and masters do what they want. Attention will likely fade, people will revert to the partisan games with democracies illusion of choice.
Again, not saying force is the only answer, its just been the one most employed.
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor."
Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Agree, Bodhi.
Successful revolutions come from the barrel of a gun (or a guillotine).
Some revolutions come at gunpoint, for sure; 'successful' is harder to measure. But regime change comes more often from peaceful protest.. Check the research by Chenoweth et. al. Peaceful protest is consistently more effective than violent.
The Trotsky line at Brest Litovsk, which you seem to be alluding to, is about power: Obviously closely related to revolution, which is often carried out by force, but Trotsky was speaking as the representative of a regime that had already consolidated control. He was talking about international relations, not internal revolution.
Hi Harry
American Revolution?
French?
Iranian?
How’d peaceful demonstrations work for Palestinians in the past?
Don’t know where you abide, Harry, but as an Amerikkkan I’m very well armed and ready to roll.
As a horse owner, I can loan you a pitchfork, though 🙂
Chenoweth's stuff is meticulously, exhaustively researched. Worth a look. This is her introducing it in a Guardian piece a few years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/01/worried-american-democracy-study-activist-techniques
I'm in Scotland. Violent revolution well in our past. Plenty of us out on the streets in favour of Independence from England, but sadly we haven't made it to 3.5% yet. Pitchforks did fine at Bannockburn, but they weren't up to it at Culloden.
Harry, very “Smart” to demonstrate for independence from England! 😉
Everyone I know who’s visited Bonnie Scotland loves your country and your people (whiskey as well!)
Oddly enough, I am reading I Kings at the moment. I have read it many times before, but reading it in 2025 is somewhat different from reading 20 or 10 years ago - at least for me, because of what is happening in Gaza, but also among a lot of my Christian friends.
And on the subject of evangelicals, it is worth remembering that a lot of evangelicals are not into Zionism. John Stott, arguably the most influential evangelical in the UK in the 20th century, said that "Political Zionism and Christian Zionism are anathema to Christian faith."
I heard and read John Stott in the 70s. Certainly one of the most important English evangelicals of his time. But how representative, I'm not so sure. Yes in UCCF / Inter Varsity circles (I'm a former UCCF staffer) less so in working class nonconformist settings (like the one I knew before uni).
There are two issues, though, to qualify what you say about evangelicals and Zionism: first, those who identify as evangelical in the US are overwhelmingly into dispensationalism. There is data on that one. Second, and this is just my impression: I was brought up on a kind of 'twin pillars' form of evangelicalism, which was common to Anglican / university / low-church settings: one pillar being the authority of scripture, the other being penal substitution .. itself resting on a 'biblical' base. I've been around evangelicals from the 70s to now and my impression is that evangelicals now overwhelmingly focus on penal substition and the notion of biblical authority has dropped away. I know fellowships where penal substition and a kind of Keswick spirituality is claimed as biblical, but there is very little exposure to the full extent of the biblical text, and a positive antipathy to any critical thinking about it. I'm sure John Stott, Jim Packer et. al. would be horrified by it, but that's what I now most often encounter. There always was an anti-intellectual streak in evangelicalism, but it's become the norm in the UK, and even more aggressively so in the US.
In my experience UK evangelicals decry US evangelicalism but have no clue how similar evangelicalism actually is either side of the Atlantic. You only have to look at the personalities, from Billy Graham onward, through to James Dobson and John Piper to Pete Greig, and at the publishing houses, and at the headline issues .. homosexuality, 'pro-life', etc. All transatlantic.
This will all seem irrelevant, I guess, to those who never knew the ecosystem, but for those of us who grew up in it, this stuff is pretty critical. And much as we might dislike him, Bannon is right, that culture is upstream of politics, and for many people theology is upstream of culture.
Well, John Stott thought for himself, so I guess he can't have been very representative. But yes - he obviously was influential in UCCF circles - which would explain why IVP published Stephen Sizer.
" . . . my impression is that evangelicals now overwhelmingly focus on penal substition and the notion of biblical authority has dropped away." Interesting comment. I'm guessing that it hasn't dropped away much in UCCF - but it is certainly true that for many people, theology is downstream of culture. (I am guessing that you meant to write downstream.) So I guess the question is "Whatever happened to evangelical theology?"
By the way, what do you think of David F. Wells?
No, I meant upstream. The more Luddite the theology the worse the pollution downstream.
Whatever happened to evangelical theology is still a good question. There will always be slivers of light, but I think on the one hand there's the theobros / Reformed attack dogs, and on the other hand .. probably there are a lot of hands. It's a long time since David wrote that book.
UCCF is not what it was. I recall a Council strategy weekend in the mid 80s with a few of the older generation still around, Oliver Barclay and one or two older than him. They could recall the early ethos of trying to reclaim the universities intellectually. We all knew that was long gone. CUs were about evangelism. A few years later KLICE (Kirby Lang Institute for Christian Ethics) .. a UCCF-founded institution, detached from UCCF when UCCF refused to publicise KLICE events on the grounds that thinking theologically about ethics wasn't really what they wanted to encourage. Tyndale detached about the same time. So that's pretty clear-cut evidence of dumbing down. And now UCCF has its own scandals, HR abuses rather than sexual, which is some comfort .. they have a long, long track record of treating staff appallingly.
But we've drifted a long way from Caitlin's post and maybe should avoid a UCCF rabbit-hole.
Ahhh. I see what you mean by upstream.
And yes, I am sure enough has been said about UCCF.