Why Don’t Jews Like the Christians Who Like Them?

[phk]

Why Don’t Jews Like the Christians Who Like Them?

Liberalism can’t abide conservative evangelicals.

In the United States, the two groups that most ardently support Israel are Jews and evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Jewish support is easy to explain, but why should certain Christians, most of them politically quite conservative, be so devoted to Israel? There is a second puzzle: despite their support for a Jewish state, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians are disliked by many Jews. And a third: a large fraction of African-Americans are hostile to Israel and critical of Jews, yet Jewish voters regard blacks as their natural allies.

The evidence about evangelical attitudes is clear. In 2006, a Pew survey found that evangelical Christians were more favorable toward Israel than the average American was—and much more sympathetic than either mainline Protestants or secularists. In another survey, evangelical Christians proved much likelier than Catholics, Protestants, or secular types to back Israeli control of Jerusalem, endorse Israeli settlements on the West Bank, and take Israel’s side in a Middle Eastern dispute. (Among every religious group, those who are most traditional are most supportive of Israel. The most orthodox Catholics and Protestants, for instance, support Israel more than their modernist colleagues do.)

Evangelical Christians have a high opinion not just of the Jewish state but of Jews as people. That Jewish voters are overwhelmingly liberal doesn’t seem to bother evangelicals, despite their own conservative politics. Yet Jews don’t return the favor: in one Pew survey, 42 percent of Jewish respondents expressed hostility to evangelicals and fundamentalists. As two scholars from Baruch College have shown, a much smaller fraction—about 16 percent—of the American public has similarly antagonistic feelings toward Christian fundamentalists.

The reason that conservative Christians—opposed to abortion and gay marriage and critical of political liberalism—can feel kindly toward Jewish liberals and support Israel so fervently is rooted in theology. One finds among fundamentalist Protestants a doctrine called dispensationalism. The dispensationalist outlook, which began in early-nineteenth-century England, sees human history as a series of seven periods, or dispensations, in each of which God deals with man in a distinctive way. The first, before Adam’s fall, was the era of innocence; the second, from Adam to Noah, the era of conscience; the third, from Noah to Abraham, of government; the fourth, from Abraham to Moses, of patriarchy; the fifth, from Moses to Jesus, of Mosaic law; and the sixth, from Jesus until today, of grace. The seventh and final dispensation, yet to come, will be the Millennium, an earthly paradise.

For dispensationalists, the Jews are God’s chosen people. For the Millennium to come, they must be living in Israel, whose capital is Jerusalem; there, the Temple will rise again at the time of Armageddon. On the eve of that final battle, the Antichrist will appear—probably in the form of a seeming peacemaker. Fundamentalists differ over who the Antichrist will be (at one time he was thought to be Nero, at another time the papacy, and today a few have suggested the secretary-general of the United Nations), but dispensationalists agree that he will deceive the people, occupy the Temple, rule in the name of God, and ultimately be defeated by the Messiah. Many dispensationalists believe that how a person treats Israel will profoundly influence his eternal destiny.

Christian dispensationalists were early Zionists and continue to support Israel today, for it is there that they believe Christ will return. In 1878, William Blackstone, a well-known dispensationalist and the author of Jesus Is Coming, wrote a document that argued for a Jewish state in Palestine. It appeared in 1891, five years before Theodor Herzl called for a Jewish state and six years before the first Zionist Congress. Blackstone got more than 400 dignitaries to sign his document, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House, John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, and several other prominent Americans, almost all of them Christians. After President Benjamin Harrison ignored the petition, Blackstone tried again in 1916 with President Woodrow Wilson, who was more sympathetic—and who supported the British foreign minister, Arthur Balfour, a devout Protestant, when in 1917 he issued his famous declaration calling for a Jewish home in Palestine.

Evangelical and fundamentalist Christian preachers enthusiastically promote this pro-Israel vision. In a study of preachers in 19 denominations, political scientist James Guth of Furman University found that evangelicals were much likelier to back Israel in their sermons than mainline Protestants or Catholics were, a difference that persisted after controlling for age, sex, party identification, and type of media used to reach congregations. Guth also showed that self-described evangelicals who attended church regularly, and thus heard their ministers’ sermons, were much more inclined to support Israel than were believers who did not attend regularly.

Evangelical preachers are reinforced by popular Christian books. In 1970, Hal Lindsey published The Late Great Planet Earth; in 1995, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins followed with Left Behind: A Novel of the Earth’s Last Days, and went on to write 11 more volumes on the same theme. Lindsey can claim more than 35 million sales, and the Left Behind books have sold 60 million. These bestsellers tell the dispensationalist story, discuss Armageddon, and argue for the protection of Jews and of Israel. Lindsey argues that, based on the book of Revelations and related biblical sources, “some time in the future,” there will be “a seven-year period climaxed by the visible return of Jesus Christ” but that this will not happen until the Jewish people have reestablished their nation in their ancient homeland.

Whatever one makes of his prediction, Lindsey is unambiguous about the importance of Israel to him—and, by extension, to his millions of readers. Reinforcing the preachers and writers are various pro-Israel evangelical organizations, including Bridges for Peace, the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, and the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel.

Mainstream Protestant groups, such as the National Council of Churches and the Middle East Council of Churches, have a very different attitude toward Israel. The NCC, for example, refused to support Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967, and immediately afterward began to protest victorious Israel’s expansion of its territory. From that point on, the NCC’s positions ran closely with Arab opinion, urging American contact with the Palestine Liberation Organization, for instance, and denouncing the Camp David Accords because they supposedly ignored the Palestinians’ national ambitions. In 2004, the Presbyterian Church decided to study a proposal to divert its investments from firms doing business with Israel. Within a year, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, and parts of the Methodist Church followed suit. As Paul Charles Merkley sums up in his book about Christian Zionism, mainline Protestant churches’ “respectable leadership had backed away from Israel; all of her constant friends were seated below the salt.”

Why do mainline Protestant leaders oppose Israel? That question becomes harder to answer when one recalls that Israel is a democratic nation with vigorously independent courts that has not only survived brutal attacks by its Arab neighbors but provided a prosperous home for the children of many Holocaust survivors. As with any other nation, Israel has pursued policies that one can challenge. Some may criticize its management of the West Bank, for example, or its attacks on Hamas leaders. But these concerns are trivial compared with Iran’s announced desire to wipe Israel off the map by using every weapon at its disposal, including (eventually) a nuclear one.

[phk]

The answer, I think, is that many Christian liberals see Israel as blocking the aspirations of the oppressed—who, they have decided, include the Palestinians. Never mind that the Palestinians support suicide bombers and rocket attacks against Israel; never mind that the Palestinians cannot form a competent government; never mind that they wish to occupy Israel “from the sea to the river.” It is enough that they seem oppressed, even though much of the oppression is self-inflicted.

After the Marxist claims about the proletariat proved false and capitalism was vindicated as the best way to achieve economic affluence, leftists had to stop pretending that they could accomplish much with state-owned factories and national economic plans. As a result, the oppressed replaced the proletariat as the Left’s object of affection. The enemy became, not capitalists, but successful nations.

That shift in focus has received encouragement from certain American academics, such as Noam Chomsky, and from the European press, including the BBC, the Guardian, the Evening Standard, and Le Monde. All tend to denounce Israel in the most unrestrained terms. When Israeli ground forces sought to root out terrorists hiding in a Jenin refugee camp, they lost 23 soldiers and killed 52 Palestinians. Among other press critics, the British writer A. N. Wilson, uninterested in the facts, called the episode a “massacre” and a “genocide.” The Left will always have its enemies; Israel has merely replaced John D. Rockefeller at the top of the list.

But why do so many Jewish groups and voters abhor their Christian evangelical allies? To answer that question carefully, we would need data that distinguish among Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and secular Jews. It is quite possible that Orthodox Jews welcome evangelical support while Reform and secular ones oppose it, but I could find no data on which to base a firm conclusion. Most Jews are political liberals, devoted to the Democratic Party and liberal causes generally. As Milton Himmelfarb once put it, “Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.” Such voting habits are not hard to explain in a population that historically includes victims of discrimination, oppression, and mass murder. By contrast, evangelicals tend to be conservatives to whom politics seems less important than their dispensationalist beliefs.

That liberal politics trumps other considerations—including worries about anti-Semitism—for many American Jews becomes clearer in light of other data. The most anti-Semitic group in America is African-Americans. This wasn’t always the case. Many early black leaders, including W. E. B. Du Bois and Ralph Bunche, were quite supportive of American Jews. Du Bois even criticized Bunche for being “insufficiently pro-Zionist.” The NAACP endorsed the creation of Israel in 1948, and the Jewish state received continued support from Paul Robeson, Bayard Rustin, and Martin Luther King, Jr. But by the time of the 1967 war, much of that leadership had left the scene. Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, James Forman, Malcolm X, and Shirley Du Bois (widow of W. E. B. Du Bois) were critical of Israel. At a New Left convention in the late 1960s, black delegates insisted on passing a resolution condemning the “imperialist Zionist war.” Nowadays, according to several polls, about one-third of U.S. blacks have very anti-Semitic attitudes, and this hasn’t changed since at least 1964, when the first such poll was conducted. And it has been African-American leaders, not white evangelicals, who have made anti-Semitic remarks most conspicuously. Everyone recalls Jesse Jackson’s reference to New York as “Hymietown,” to say nothing of Louis Farrakhan, a great admirer of Hitler, who has called Jews “bloodsuckers.”

Yet African-American voters are liberals, and so often get a pass from their Jewish allies. To Jews, blacks are friends and evangelicals enemies, whatever their respective dispositions toward Jews and Israel.

But another reason, deeper than Jewish and evangelical differences over abortion, school prayer, and gay marriage, may underlie Jewish dislike of Christian fundamentalists. Though evangelical Protestants are supportive of Israel and tolerant of Jews, in the eyes of their liberal critics they are hostile to the essential elements of a democratic regime. They believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and worry about the decay of morality; they must wish, therefore, to impose a conservative moral code, alter the direction of the country so that it conforms to God’s will, require public schools to teach Christian beliefs, and crush the rights of minorities.

Christian Smith, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina, analyzed four surveys of self-identified evangelicals and found that, while they do think that America was founded as a Christian nation and fear that the country has lost its moral bearings, these views are almost exactly the same as those held by non-evangelical Americans. Evangelicals, like other Americans, oppose having public schools teach Christian values, oppose having public school teachers lead students in vocal prayers, and oppose a constitutional amendment declaring the country a Christian nation. Evangelicals deny that there is one correct Christian view on most political issues, deny that Jews must answer for allegedly killing Christ, deny that laws protecting free speech go too far, and reject the idea that whites should be able to keep blacks out of their neighborhoods. They overwhelmingly agree that Jews and Christians share the same values and can live together in harmony. Evangelicals strongly oppose abortion and gay marriage, but in almost every other respect are like other Americans.

Whatever the reason for Jewish distrust of evangelicals, it may be a high price to pay when Israel’s future, its very existence, is in question. Half of all Protestants in the country describe themselves as evangelical, or born-again, Christians, making up about one-quarter of all Americans (though they constitute only 16 percent of white Christian voters in the Northeast). Jews, by contrast, make up less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, and that percentage will shrink: as many as half of all Jews marry non-Jews. When it comes to helping secure Israel’s survival, the tiny Jewish minority in America should not reject the help offered by a group that is ten times larger and whose views on the central propositions of a democratic society are much like everybody else’s. No good can come from repeating the 1926 assertion of H. L. Mencken that fundamentalist Christians are “yokels” and “morons.”

James Q. Wilson, formerly a professor at Harvard and at UCLA, now lectures at Pepperdine University. In 2003 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award. His article is adapted from a Manhattan Institute lecture.

[Torie]

Odd topic for James Wilson to deal with. I think he is the only relatively conservative sociologist [professor of public policy] on the planet.

[Хahar 🤔]

Very interesting article. Except for the last paragraph of each post and the first three paragraphs of the second post.

[Torie]

Very interesting article. Except for the last paragraph of each post and the first three paragraphs of the second post.

 

The quartet of paragraphs are dissed because you mind them uninteresting, or disagree with them?  If that latter, have at it! Don't be wall flower.

[Хahar 🤔]

Very interesting article. Except for the last paragraph of each post and the first three paragraphs of the second post.

 

The quartet of paragraphs are dissed because you mind them uninteresting, or disagree with them?  If that latter, have at it! Don't be wall flower.

Very well.

There are 5 paragraphs that I disagree with, which I shall call Paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

¶1 is irrelevant. That's all history, and the fact is that Israel is now much stronger than all its neighbors, and just as irresponsible. ¶2 utilizes a form of the Fallacy of Composition and wrongly assumes that all Arabs in Palestine believe the same things. ¶3 is simply a smear against the left. ¶4 is a continuation of ¶3. ¶5 assumes that American Jews have some large influence on American policy toward Israel.

[Torie]

I see your point of view, except as to 5, which Wilson does not assert; in fact he suggests the opposite, that Jews need allies. I did wince at 2 myself. An unfortunately high percentage do at this point, but lumping everyone together is unfair. Bringing Marxism into the equation, and having some grand unified theory that "the Left" hates Israel , and why it allegedly does (because it is successful), isn't a very helpful paradigm I agree. In fact, it's kind of silly really.

I am very suspicious of grand unified theories.  With some exceptions, rather rare, I am a micro kind of guy, and like to take issues one by one, and actually look at the empirical data, before taking a leap. The big picture folks too often are in need of lasik surgery or spectacles, which they refuse to undergo or put on, and given the fuzzy nature of their perceived forest, tend to bump into trees.

[Хahar 🤔]

I see your point of view, except as to 5, which Wilson does not assert; in fact he suggests the opposite, that Jews need allies. I did wince at 2 myself. An unfortunately high percentage do at this point, but lumping everyone together is unfair. Bringing Marxism into the equation, and having some grand unified theory that "the Left" hates Israel , and why it allegedly does (because it is successful), isn't a very helpful paradigm I agree. In fact, it's kind of silly really.

I am very suspicious of grand unified theories.  With some exceptions, rather rare, I am a micro kind of guy, and like to take issues one by one, and actually look at the empirical data, before taking a leap. The big picture folks too often are in need of lasik surgery or spectacles, which they refuse to undergo or put on, and given the fuzzy nature of their perceived forest, tend to bump into trees.

Well, that's perfectly reasonable. But my beef with ¶5 is that it says "Jews need all the help that they can get". That's assuming that Jews are in a position to accept the help (which they are not).

[Bono]

Jews and Dispensationalists each think they're using one another. The Jews believe they're deluded but still use their support for Israel when they tell Christians God will punish them if they don't support Israel. Dispensationalists believe that through supporting Israel, they can precipitate the end times where most Jews would be slaughtered by the Antichrist, according to their theology.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is that?

[Хahar 🤔]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is that?

They're not the ones doing the accepting. It's the neocons in the White House who are.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is that?

They're not the ones doing the accepting. It's the neocons in the White House who are.

I think you mean facilitating the help, rather than accepting it.

Support for Israel has a larger constituency in the US than Jews, Neocons, and fundamentalists however, and that support has grown due to the perceived radical Muslim jihad agenda. For myself, I am not prepared, to  accept any policy that poses a material  risk that Jews in Israel will be forced to abandon their own Jewish based state, and decamp or die. Why? Because it's wrong. In my instance, it's not tribal, it's not religious; rather  it's moral, and it's hard wiring.

I have a rather consistent point of view about these matters: for the Bosnians, for the Kosovars, for the Israelis, for the Cambodians, for the Darfurians, for the Tutsi in Rwanda, for any group threatened with diaspora at the best, or genocide at the worst. It must not  stand, and to the extent the US allows it to stand, it makes me ashamed.

Being able to empathize with the "other" is one measure of the Mensch.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is that?

They're not the ones doing the accepting. It's the neocons in the White House who are.

I think you mean facilitating the help, rather than accepting it.

Support for Israel has a larger constituency in the US than Jews, Neocons, and fundamentalists however, and that support has grown due to the perceived radical Muslim jihad agenda. For myself, I am not prepared, to  accept any policy that poses a material  risk that Jews in Israel will be forced to abandon their own Jewish based state, and decamp or die. Why? Because it's wrong. In my instance, it's not tribal, it's not religious; rather  it's moral, and it's hard wiring.

I have a rather consistent point of view about these matters: for the Bosnians, for the Kosovars, for the Israelis, for the Cambodians, for the Darfurians, for the Tutsi in Rwanda, for any group threatened with diaspora at the best, or genocide at the worst. It must not  stand, and to the extent the US allows it to stand, it makes me ashamed.

Being able to empathize with the "other" is one measure of the Mensch.

You will admit that the middle east is probably the worst place they could have chosen. Those fools know how to hold a grudge and how to fight. You know this is going to be our generation's 100 year war. Historical oddities when noted by someone in the classroom but very understandable for those in the situation. Probably what will happen in Kashmir too although it will remain quiet as long as the economies of the two nations are doing fine.