I’ve spent quite time commenting on how some supersessionists approach the modern state of Israel. The more I read the more confirmation I get that there’s a correlation between supersessionism and how some (not all) clergymen treat the nation Israel and Zionism.
Most would strenuously object to being classified as anti-Semitic. I know Stephen Sizer does.
Yet how do we define individuals who are committed to unfairly criticizing Israel while willfully ignoring any incriminating evidence against Israel’s enemies?
Sizer recently posted a response to certain charges made against him. Is he perhaps feeling the heat from over-exposure? His excuses are weak. For example, he claims that over the years his blog has “lamented the suffering of Christians under Islamic rule” and then he points to two token instances, and so on for the other charges.
Yet all one has to do is spend some time going through his blog to see that it’s saturated with anti-Israeli propaganda as well as self-promotion of his “Christian Zionism” book and videos. He may deny anti-Semitism or anti-Israelism but he certainly seems to be on a crusade against them. He also conveniently ignores the fact that the Palestinian problem is largely aggravated by "Islamic rule" and not Israel.
Harry’s Place blog posted two problematic articles on Sizer HERE and HERE. See also Moriel’s article.
Perhaps Rev Sizer can explain that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment