rich08

Thank you for monitoring the posts. I could not agree more - I didn't see the offending posts, but it is a shame that people feel the need to attack others rather than debate in a friendly, encouraging, uplifting and above all Christian manner. So thank you for the work you do. (I am not sure what ToS stands for though!)

Sir Richard, I hate trying to post when I don't have a LOT of time. In a rush to finish it can come across as "short" when I get right to the point. Plus, it takes time to post the references of what I'm trying to explain for people who haven't kept up with the boards before...but here goes. Stephen Sizer is the most vocal and active leader of the push to isolate christian zionists from the rest of the Body. He has not hidden the fact that he wants to silence zionists in America because we are Israel's most influential friends and without us, they have no support in the USA...or the world. But his methods for opposing us are not purely theological. I would welcome a public debate of his theological position but his political activism makes it clear that he has sided with terrorists against the jews already. So am I, but there is no better way to spread the gospel than by telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Christian zionists are not "against" anyone! We are "for" life and believe that everyone deserves it. I know quite a few zionists and we regularly pray for the arab people and provide humanitarian support where we aren't killed for trying. This conference was framed against the truth from the very beginning though. Even the title tries to suggest that Jesus is suffering at the checkpoint of Bethlehem. Well, it is a hassle to go through that checkpoint, but you ought to see how much more He suffers inside Palestinian controlled areas! He is not allowed there at all and that is why Bethlehem is down from 90% christian arabs to less than 10%. Have you ever been through that checkpoint? I have, and it is as humiliating has being searched by the TSA when you board a plane. I can totally understand why anyone would despise being examined at a military checkpoint every time they try to leave the city or go home...but Sizer ignores the reason why that is necessary. He ignores the reason why Israel has to build a wall to keep suicide bombers from walking across the border. He ignores the fact that one side of this problem (arabs) has consistently sworn to destroy the Jews and show no signs of relenting. Until those factors are taken into account, there can not be a serious discussion of a peaceable resolution, and Israel can not be blamed for trying to protect their citizens (Jews, Christians, and Muslims!) from being murdered. Instead, Sizer has his picture taken with the very people who are behind such wickedness. He proudly displays himself in the arms of Arafat, Iranians mullahs, and practically anyone calling for the destruction of Israel. those are 2 separate references: 1. As a "christian leader", he should be demanding that his friends stop indoctrinating small children into a life of hatred and murder. 2. The point about hospitals was to illustrate that Israel is NOT trying to kill nor harm anyone. They help jews and arabs alike, when given the opportunity. This is why christian arabs have left Bethlehem and moved into Israel proper, instead of staying in Palestinian controlled areas where they are being slaughtered by Palestinian muslims with the approval of arab leaders. It's one thing to have a disagreement among brothers, but quite another to provide cover for murderers politically, theologically, and actively. Stephen Sizer may not be the only one doing so, but he joins a list of people who are just dishonest about the situation. I want to give everyone the benefit of doubt if they are doing so in ignorance, but I believe all doubt has been removed when it comes to Sizer and his network. And until the Anglican church renounces Sizer, this is very relevant to the Anglican church discussion. . If you would rather call me Sir than Richard that is fine; however I would prefer Richard - but please not 'Sir Richard' as I have no earthly title or rank! (In England calling someone in that manner normally means they hold a title or have been knighted by the Queen - neither applies to me.) There is no rush - I am happy to wait until you have the time to sit down a outline the arguments. I understand that you wish to identify Stephen Sizer as one of the main leaders of his position and that you feel his theological stance and actions inappropriate - but I would like to understand the Biblical arguments. At the moment you have critiqued Stephen Sizer's theological position and attacked his actions; whilst it is clear that you differ from his views you have yet to provide the Biblical rational for your stance. I am aware of the political dimensions especially with regard to the US approach towards Israel. Generally the British government sides with the US on international matters but not always (I am not entirely sure of our current stance). Of course the US approach may be the correct approach - but theology should start by trying to understand the Bible and in as far as possible not allowing our interpretation to be influenced by our own culture. As for Mr Sizer having his photograph taken with various influential figures in the Middle East (famous or infamous) - I would point out that lots of people have had their photograph taken with Yasser Arafat including the prime ministers of Israel and US president (Bill Clinton). From my understanding you argue strongly that the Anglican church should remove Mr Sizer and this is therefore not only a criticism of Mr Sizer but of Anglicanism. Mr Sizer adopts a very conservative approach generally in his Biblical theology (one supported by leading evangelicals from around the world). I still feel that is a much bigger issue than relating to the Anglican church as it is a position held by many Christians of different denominations including within the US.

Can someone help me out with the different positions re Christian Zionism? I am not looking for an in-depth theological argument or a defence of one position or a debunking of another. Just looking for a basic summary of what the different positions are at this stage please. Many thanks, Richard

No need to call me Sir - Richard is fine. But I appreciate the courtesy Maybe: but those who adhere to that position would state exactly the same about your stance. Hence my desire to look into the Biblical arguments to understand. From what I can establish thus far, one's hermeneutical tool for deciding how to interpret the Bible determines the conclusions that result. It simple terms it depends on how literally you apply the Bible (to what extent that you allow for allegory and symbolism) and how you apply prophecies in the Bible regarding Israel (in that have they already been fulfilled in OT Israel, whether they are fulfilled or will be fulfilled in a 'new' Israel - i.e. the church - or whether their is a future fulfilment for a physical Israel). [i have summarised the different positions here.] So if you believe the Bible should be interpreted using tool A your will end up with interpretation X and from that flows your approach to the Israel-Palestine problem. Conversely if you believe the Bible should be interpreted using tool B you end up with interpretation Y and from that flows a different approach. Now I should say that both conservatives and liberals take opposing viewpoints for different reasons. But Stephen Sizer and many others take their position and would argue and defend it using Scripture. Of course we have come a long way from the origin of this forum relating to the Anglican church and maybe this need to be debated elsewhere; it is not an issue unique to the Anglican church.

No, it's much much simpler than that. He sits in front of a picture of the grand mullah of Iran and tells partial truths designed to deceive. He exaggerates any supposed offenses of Israel and ignores the fact that Palestinians are not entirely innocent. If he really gave a rip about Palestinian christians, he'd be able to clearly identify their problems stem from their own brutal leaders. Do you view Yassir Arafat as a decent person? A credible statesman? A trustworthy negotiating partner? How about Abbas, the mastermind behind Black September? Hamas? Hezbollah? THEY are the problem and anyone who loves the truth can see it. Sizer does not. The "Christ at the Checkpoint" foolishness was utter hypocrisy, as they tried to blame Israel for the persecution arab Christians. No, sir. THAT is coming from the islamic rulers in Bethlehem. I've been there and subject to it myself. I've supported (and have friends in Israel who support) arab christians all over the land. I have a personal friend who is a muslim from Bethlehem who can testify about his brother being brutally tortured and then murdered for extortion money by the Palestinian Authority. He has no problem with Israel. The Palestinian Authority ran the Baptist church out of Bethlehem because they wouldn't support that cynical lie of a "conference", whose only purpose was for propaganda. There are so many example of Israel treating the Palestinians better than their counterpart leaders in the surrounding countries do, and yet have we have heard Sizer protesting the Coptics of Eygpt being murdered by the muslims? How about in Ethiopia, Sudan or the wonderful mullahs of Iran to whom Sizer is a hero? One example: Israeli hospitals see hundreds of arabs (who want to destroy Israel) daily. How many jews do you think are welcome in arab hospitals? Palestinian children are still being taught (in violation of treaties made with Israel) that Jews are monkeys and pigs. The 5 & 6 year-olds are going to summer school to learn how to be a suicide bomber, while Israel kids are learning mathematics. There is absolutely NO moral equivalence as Mr Sizer has attempted to portray, yet he is actively seeking political means to divide those who trust in the sure Word of God from those who can be manipulated through theological double-speak. Besides that, he seems like a very nice man....but I am so glad to finally hear that there are people in England protesting him! Hurray! I join them! Thank you for your reply. I am not sure why you have specifically decided to attack the position held by Stephen Sizer when he is only one among many Christian leaders from around the world who hold to this stance. I have read through the affirmations of 'Christ at the Checkpoint' - it appears that this organisation is eager to spread the gospel to both Arab and Jew alike - admittedly I have not researched the organisation in detail. I am not sure how Mr Sizer is responsible for the teachings in schools or who is treated in hospitals. I expect that the difficulty here is the issue of Zionism. There are different interpretations: Stephen Sizer (and many others) have adopted one position and it would be logical to conclude that you disagree. This is a complex issue - if you can assist with a Biblical defence of your position then that would help me to understand where you are coming from. You criticise his theology but do not present any theological position or defence of your own. To answer your question about Yasser Arafat etc. let me be perfectly clear: I do not support anyone who advances political positions by violence, threats, lies or deceit or whatever nationality or ethnic background. I am not saying I agree with Mr Sizer or his possession on Zionism: but he is one of many Christians who are attempting to work out from the Bible what this means and how it applies to the the current situation in Palestine.

Okay - lots of replies: it's going to take me a while to sort all this out. However, I shall make a number of initial comments: (1) Stephen Sizer (and others) have been the subject of a hate campaign in which abuse has been directed at them on the internet; this is the web equivalent of standing outside someone's house with placards accusing them of various things. This resulted in the "offender" being traced by the police in this country and given a warning. Now of course there are times when obedience to God's word takes precedence over the earthly laws, however the articles I have seen are quotes of quotes of articles written by the "offender" and I urge caution as they are potentially a biased one-sided presentation. Stephen Sizer and others were accused of being anti-Semitic and denying the holocaust - something which they strongly deny. (2) Stephen Sizer (amongst others - including US Baptist Pastors) support an organisation than supports Palestinian Christians. (3) There is a debate both within and outside the Anglican church (i.e. across different denominations and in different countries including the US) as to how to handle the Jewish Palestinian question based on (i) how the Bible is interpreted (in terms of it's meaning) and (ii) in what ways it applies to the questions facing the Israel-Palestinian question. I am not saying this is an easy issue (I think it is a very difficult one); but I do feel that Stephen Sizer is being unfairly attacked based on the misinformation about him found on the internet. Stephen Sizer has his own website. This includes links to those who disagree with his position (including for example the council of Christians and Jews -interesting it includes Anglicans!) It's is an interesting debate but one that is not confined to the Anglican church. I am happy to explore it - but we need to start with the theological arguments and ensure that (where we refer to people) the viewpoints we present are accurate (including not misquoting or taking things out of context).

Anglican minister Stephen Sizer is going to lead England (and the rest of the church) into hell if he isn't stopped. Stopped from what exactly? Maybe you would care to justify what is a fairly sweeping statement and attack on an Anglican minister. If he is doing something wrong or you believe his theology is wrong then please at least be able to say what and defend your comment so that we can learn and understand.

Thank you for everyone’s replies: I have enjoyed reading them and considering what has been said (I have found it an interesting debate). Watching the BBC programme it was interesting how many times cult members referred to quotes from the Bible - although they were often taken out of context, used selectively or given ‘unique’ interpretations. Leaders of cults claim to have some special revelation, either from a god or gods or divine beings or aliens or some other special philosophical insight. This then gives them a message to proclaim to others. One of the challenges (from an apologetic viewpoint) is this: what is the difference between them and say Moses (who met with God on a mountain) or the apostle Paul’s encounter on the road to Damascus? Many cult leaders set themselves up to be divinely inspired leaders or messiahs? How does that differ from Jesus? Yes you can argue that Christians do good works [as a product of their faith rather than the means of salvation which is by grace alone], but there are also many examples of non-Christians doing ‘good works’ and examples of Christians failing to do so (the question of child abuse was raised in the programme - there are many examples in the church of exactly that: something that is often common in cults). In the debate on the BBC programme someone raised the point that all religions/sects/cults claim to know the truth and believe that the others are wrong. You can also argue that it is a question of manipulation; taking you away from your family and friends; indoctrinating you into a group from which it is difficult to leave. Whilst it drives me mad to see churches manipulating people (let’s be honest it happens far too often) there is an element of these things in the Christian faith: for example leaving family and friends (see for example Matthew 10:35-37, Matthew 19:29) not neglecting to attend meetings and mutual encouragement to follow the teachings (for example Hebrews 10:23-25) and rules for those who fail to abide by the ‘rules’ (for example Matthew 18:15-20). So, argue the critics, Christianity is guilty as charged: just like any other religious sect or cult. I do not claim to be the greatest apologist (far from it) - and I am not going to attempt to counter each of the points raised (at least not yet); but I argue that there is one very distinct difference between Jesus and all the other leaders of the different world religions and belief systems: Jesus like the vast majority (excluding modern day cult leaders) has died; but he is the only one to raise from the dead: this makes him truly unique and qualified in a way no other leader can even come close. (Of course there are many other differences too!) Comments?

On Sunday the BBC had a television programme that debated the question 'Is there a difference between a religion and a cult?' There were various representatives from different cults, people who have left cults, professors of religious studies, sects and cults, and some representatives from mainstream religions (for example a Rabbi). Interestingly (especially as Britain is supposed to be a Christian country) there was no representative from a main Christian denomination; there was a representative from the organisation Jews for Jesus but the organisation was classified as being a cult. Some argued that the only difference between a religion and a cult is a question of size: other than that they are the same - so (for example) both take your money and demand certain patterns of behaviour (albeit that some may be more extreme than others). Others argued it was a question of whether it was outward or inward looking (for example serving the community at large or serving it's own leadership). Other argued it was a question of whether you choose to join by free will or whether you are preyed on and manipulated. I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this. I'm not sure if it can be accessed from outside the UK, but the programme can be viewed online (at least for the next few days) Big Questions? Any comments? I'd be interested to get other peoples' views - my wife and I were debating it last night (in terms of the appropriate Christian response).

Thanks for your reply. I have done a little research (emphasis on the word ‘little’) and I have now realised that there are some big differences between the Anglican church in the US (called Episcopalian church) and the Anglican church in England (Church of England). (May be some with greater knowledge of the Episcopalian Church can help me out - I apologise in advance if my understanding is wrong or I have unfairly stereotyped.) The Episcopalian church has a slightly different relationship to the Anglican communion; it broke away from the Church of England when America gained independence and does not have the same links as other elements of the Anglican church (for example in Africa). In general terms the Episcopalian church is much more liberal than the Church of England; that said there are anglican churches in the US that object strongly to some of the practices of the Episcopalian church and there are also some very liberal churches with the Church of England. The Church of England is facing some very difficult questions over women bishops (women are now ordained as priests - that is another controversial issue with some for and some against), homosexual clergy and homosexual unions/marriages; these things would appear to be normal practice in Episcopalian church but that is not the case in the Church of England and such moves are being strongly opposed both within the Church of England itself and by other elements of the Anglican communion. Interestingly, whilst there are a large number of liberal churches in the Church of England the numbers attending their services are in decline; this is in stark contrast to the evangelical wing of the church of England whose numbers continue to grow (praise God!). A quick search on Google (although I always take what I read on Google with a pinch of salt unless I am happy it is coming from a reputable source) is that the same is true of the Episcopal church which is in rapid decline. As said in an earlier post I select a church based on it’s Biblical teaching and whether I and my family grow as Christians. I do not regard myself as Anglican (I was baptised as an adult in a Baptist church having become a Christian at University); but I am attending such a church (C of E) at the moment as it is the church that currently most meets this criteria in the local area where I live.

‘God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.’ (Not my line - I heard it in a sermon; but it makes the point very well.) God created us male and female; this is the model He gave us and He did this for a reason: Genesis states it is for companionship and procreation. I think the purpose of marriage is wonderfully summed up in the traditional marriage vows used by the Church of England: Marriage is a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God. It is given that as man and woman grow together in love and trust, they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind, as Christ is united with his bride, the Church. The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together in the delight and tenderness of sexual union and joyful commitment to the end of their lives. It is given as the foundation of family life in which children are [born and] nurtured and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad, may find strength, companionship and comfort, and grow to maturity in love. Marriage is a way of life made holy by God, and blessed by the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ with those celebrating a wedding at Cana in Galilee. Marriage is a sign of unity and loyalty which all should uphold and honour. It enriches society and strengthens community. No one should enter into it lightly or selfishly but reverently and responsibly in the sight of almighty God.

Do you ever get those times when a Bible passage just leaps out and grabs hold of you powerfully to the point where you are moved to tears - those times when you feel you have really met with God. Well that happened to me today. I cannot be proud or boastful: it simply showed up how pathetic my Christian life can be. The passage in question is Revelation 3:20: ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me’ (ESV). It’s such a well known verse that’s it easy to forget what it is really about. It’s often used to invite non-Christians to invite Jesus into their lives. But that is to take the verse out of context. This letter is actually written to Christians. To a church. Read the whole letter to the church in Laodicea. What’s it about? Jesus says: ‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!’ This verse used to puzzle me - I used to think that hot meant on fire for Jesus and cold meant the opposite. Of course hot or cold in that sense is modern day idiom. Wind back the clock 2,000 years. Hot water was good for washing and cooking. Cold water was cool and refreshing. But luke warm water? Good for nothing. (Drinking Luke warm water is horrible - no wonder Jesus wants to spit it out.) It’s like we’ve become good for nothing; no use to Jesus. It’s arrived at the point where he is actually outside our lives, outside our churches looking in, standing outside and excluded. There we are thinking everything is going swimmingly well: ‘I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing,’ we say. And the reality: ‘you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.’ Not sure why but the whole passage moved me deeply today. I looked at the state of the church in my country (England) and my own life and just cried. Oh God let this change; let us buy gold refined by your fire, clothe us in your robes, and cleanse our eyes. Let me be hot or cold rather than horrible useless, lukewarm, good for nothing water. Hope it's okay to share this.

Well do you think that your part of a Church System or are you an individual believer? Do you think that the Anglican Church will get better or worse? I think it will get worse, remember the scriptures have rules on who to fellowship with. 2 CORINTHIANS 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what FELLOWSHIP hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? EPHESIANS 5:11 And have no FELLOWSHIP with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. PHILIPPIANS 1:5 For your FELLOWSHIP in the gospel from the first day until now; 1 JOHN 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have FELLOWSHIP with us: and truly our FELLOWSHIP is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 6 If we say that we have FELLOWSHIP with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have FELLOWSHIP one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. Organized Religion with traditions of men always fails. Once there are divisions then that is it. While others may be pretenders we dont have to be. i will pray but it may be God's will that there be no Church of England, we have to acknowledge that possibility Some interesting questions. Let me reply reply as follows: Firstly, whether you are a Christian is not determined by the denomination of church that you attend; we are saved by grace alone that comes through faith (as per - for example - Ephesians 2:8); this is an individual decision. So it is possible to attend a very strong biblically based church and NOT be a Christian or attend a 'weak' church and to be a Christian. Secondly, I do not believe that any one person (with the obvious exception of Jesus Christ himself) has a monopoly on the truth; we are all fallible. (Contra the teaching of the Catholic church in respect of the infallibility of the Pope). Thirdly you may be right: it is likely like that the Anglican church will fracture and break up; indeed I wonder if that may be a good thing as it will give the evangelical wing (of which I am a strong advocate and supporter) much greater freedom. Fourthly, I read your comments about fellowship (I note that they are quoted from the King James Bible with a wry smile because the translation is the work of the Anglican church); if you take these verses to mean a literal 'never have fellowship with anyone who has wrong doctrine' then the logical conclusion is that you would never have fellowship with anyone as everyone is fallible. The question is where do you draw the line. Fifthly, it is Jesus's wish that the church be united - see John 17. Sixthly, all churches have some form of traditions - they may not be written down formally but there is a set way of doing things: for example non-denominational churches I have been to have a standard framework for the Lord's supper and rules about who to admit into membership and not. Seventhly, as an organised church the Anglican church is the father of modern mission sending out missionaries into the new world and spread God's word; I certainly do not regard that as failure but something I praise God for. Of the passages you quote only one deals directly with the issue of associating with false believers in fellowship. In relation to Ephesians 5:11 the word translated 'fellowship' by the KJV means in this context 'don't take part in' (some translations use these actual words) in sinful acts; the context is that the Ephesian Christians were living like they used to before they became Christians (with the all pagan practices that went with it). The passage in Philippians relates to the apostle Paul rejoicing at the Philippian involvement in the gospel (there is no context of false teaching). The passage in 1 John relates to sin breaking or harming our relationship with God and with other Christians "If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:6f from ESV). From the passages you have listed the only passage that talks directly about fellowship with unbelievers (as opposed to their practices) is the passage from Corinthians: again this passage needs to be read in context; Paul justifies his argument by quoting the Old Testament (quoting Leviticus and Isaiah) again the context here is not living like the pagans: Israel had become no different to the pagan world around them and is rebuked and Paul tells the Christian church that we too should be different. So we shouldn't mix up our worship with pagan practices. But what exactly does Paul mean? Can I go into my local supermarket owned and run by non-Christians and be served by a non-Christian; can I work alongside non-believers and people of other faiths? Can I attend church with a non-Christian (maybe someone of a different religion) who has come to an outreach service (or for that matter a normal service)? Can I have fellowship with someone who believes in Christ, lives a holy and moral lifestyle but has a different interpretation over which Bible version they prefer or whether to sing old hymns or modern praise songs? Is it right that I can join people from the Catholic church and the Muslim faith in opposing calls to homosexual marriage? And what should I do if invited to a Catholic wedding? I agree with the general principle that you should not have fellowship with unbelievers, but as we don't have a big sign on our heads saying how is and who is not a genuine believer it is not as straight forward as it may appear. However, I do draw a line: for example I will not join a church that allows homosexual marriage - for this reason I would hope that if the Church of England adopts such a stance then the evangelical wing of the church should break away. I have written quite a lot looking back over it. It is good to be challenged and think things through. Very happy to listen to any response. And most importantly thank you for your prayers - please continue to pray.

I am sorry to say that I am a little saddened by some comments in this thread as they don't show a true understanding of what is happening within the Anglican church in England. I am currently attending a Church of England church so maybe I can shed some light on what is actually the case. Firstly the Church of England is made up of various 'flavours' (I have stubbled to find the right word) - yes there are plenty of liberals, anglo-catholics but there is also a very strong and thriving evangelical stream within the Anglican church that is very opposed to what is happening in relation to many things, including homosexuality. These churches are standing firm albeit that this may lead to division with more liberal anglicans. I have worshipped in many churches as I have moved around the country: I always attempt to find the church that helps me and my family grow in Christ and ensure that there is solid Biblical teaching; sometimes I have worshipped in Baptist churches (sometimes I have found Baptist churches to be very weak in Biblical teaching) and sometimes I have worshipped in Anglican churches. Secondly I am grieved by the liberal direction that my country and that many with the Anglican church are taking. It is very ironic that the main stand against liberal values (for example the current debate on homosexual marriage) is taken by the Catholic church and the Muslim faith; it is a gut wrenching indictment and condemnation of what is happening to the Anglican church in this country. However, there are plenty of Christians in Anglican churches across the country who would feel exactly the same way as I do. What is interesting is that the evangelical wing of the Church of England is expanding (in terms of congregations) whilst the rest of it is declining. It would not surprise me that just as there maybe a schism in the world-wide anglican church if there is also a schism within the Church of England with liberals, catholics and evangelicals all going their separate ways ways. I hope that is a helpful picture. However, please PRAY for this country and for the Church of England - although it's influence is being diminished on an almost daily basis it still holds a lot of influence in this country.

Me too! Made me laugh, then made me want to cry because it's not really all that funny once you think about it. God forgive me for the times that I've lived these versions of the songs instead of the right ones! Made me laugh too - but as you say, when you think about it it is really no laughing matter: how often we praise God and make all sorts of promises at church on Sunday and then come Monday morning it's the furthest thing on our minds (and I regret it so often includes me).