Social Justice


IRD writers and contributors comment on what social justice is, and how Christians can advocate for it based on the Gospel and natural law.

Mitri Raheb talks about Liberation Theology

July 5, 2017

Pastor Lauds Liberation Theology by Bashing Atonement

8 Responses to Pastor Lauds Liberation Theology by Bashing Atonement

  1. Palamas says:

    Repeating anti-Semitic canards like “modern Jews aren’t descended from ancient Israelites” unmasks Raheb for what he is: a false prophet leading his people down a condemned path.

    • Richard Bell says:

      As a matter of empirical fact, every person with an ancestor who lived 200 years ago in the area between the Atlantic Ocean and Mongolia and between the Arctic Ocean and the equator, has, almost certainly, descended from ancient Israelites.
      It is wrong to deny that Jews are descended from ancient Israelites, but it is equally wrong to assert that Jews are unusual in that respect.

  2. Mary Lazor says:

    The pastor is first a Palestinian, second a liberal Lutheran, and lastly a follower of Christ. In the US, this kind of attitude explains the shrinking ELCA.

    • Richard Bell says:

      “The pastor is first a Palestinian, second a liberal Lutheran, and lastly a follower of Christ.”
      Has Raheb professed this, or is it merely a defamatory allegation of Lazor?

      • says:

        Ahh binary logic to discredit the person rather than the statement. This would be considered a deduction by Lazor based on the comments of Raheb. The deduction may be wrong but dismissing it as an allegation does not answer it. That a statement is defamatory I find not objectionable as many need to be dropped a peg. I am confused by the notion that the ELCA is palestinian.

  3. Richard Bell says:

    IRD continues to slander Mitri Raheb by misrepresenting his ideas. Now it has done so in a way that should be obvious to all. Raheb did not deny that Christ’s atonement was the greatest act of self-sacrificial love the world has ever known. Raheb said that the Crucifixion has not only that significance. He said that the Crucifixion has some additional importance: “The cross is a permanent reminder of the millions of people who are persecuted either by the state or by the religious establishment because they raise their prophetic critique to an unjust ruler or to a corrupt form of religion.” Raheb may be mistaken; millions of persecuted Christians may think of the Crucifixion but not be reminded that Jesus too stood against political or religious oppressors and suffered at their hands. If IRD knows that Raheb is mistaken about those persecuted Christians, it would be fair to correct him. IRD is unfair in falsely imputing bad ideas to Raheb.
    Why does IRD continue to treat Raheb this way? I suspect it is because Raheb is a powerful prophetic voice against IRD’s political creed, which leads IRD far beyond supporting the existence of the state of Israel as a special homeland of Jewish people. (NB: Raheb and I too support the existence of the state of Israel as a special homeland of Jewish people.)
    Both Raheb and IRD deny that this is just a matter of politics. They think it is also an issue of theology:
    “Raheb wove an implicit line of logic throughout the whole lecture: because modern Jewish people are not the ancient Israelites of the Bible, they have no ‘spiritual’ claim over contested Palestinian land. And since ancient Israel’s only purpose was to prepare for the Messiah, there is no need for a Jewish state anymore. Any argument to preserve a physical Jewish state would, therefore, be a Zionist misinterpretation of prophecy and an act of oppression to the Palestinian people.”
    On this issue, Raheb’s implicit line of logic is impeccable and God’s plan revealed in the Bible is clear enough. I join the author of this piece in recommending the recent writings of Gerald McDermott, which attempt to support the Zionist misinterpretation of prophecy. Any reader with an open mind will find in McDermott an example of the narrow, literalistic, incoherent interpretation of the Bible characteristic of Christian Zionism or New Zionism, and that open-minded reader is likely to agree with Raheb that Zionists are wrong.

    • George Brown says:

      Agreement with Raheb or Bell would require ignoring or rejecting far more scripture than I am willing to ignore or reject. I do find it quite easy, however, to ignore or reject Raheb’s and Bell’s points of view. Both are far too much at odds with both scripture and history and easily recognizable as a thin “christian” veneer over the age old hatred of Jews and Israel.

      • Richard Bell says:

        I deny that I hate Jews and Israel and there is not a hint of hatred in anything I said. What you call “easily recognizable” is just a smear of your own making. It is appalling that one who is ostensibly Christian would speak of Christians as you speak of Raheb and me. Come, Lord Jesus, and let us have your righteous judgments!
        On the other hand, I affirm that I love not only the Jews but also the word of God. Maybe you do too. Far from being at odds with scripture, my point of view on the status of the contemporary state of Israel is respectfully consistent with it. I could write at length on this, because the scriptural evidence in favor of Raheb’s and Bell’s points of view is abundant. But let me get you started understanding both scripture and history with a simple but essential truth. God did not promise any blessing, much less the Holy Land, to unbelievers, and the only thing Jews have in common (as they like to say) is that they deny Jesus is the Messiah. God’s promises were to believers only. Pray for illumination, then reread and think about Romans 4:9-15 and 9:6-8.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *