Most people would call me a “conservative” Lutheran, although I would prefer to be called orthodox or traditional. Nevertheless, I will accept the label. Therefore, as a conservative Lutheran, it is incumbent upon me to differentiate myself from the conservative Christians who hold views that I reject. So let me say clearly that I reject Christian Zionism.

What is Christian Zionism?  Normally, that term describes a fundamentalist dispensationalist theology that believes the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 was the fulfilment of prophecy.  Furthermore it holds that all the land currently in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza belong to the State of Israel by divine right. As a result, it holds that Israel has the right to annex territory and establish settlements wherever it wishes.  It does not recognize the Palestinians as a people, nor their right to have a state of their own.  Finally, it sees conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as a necessary and unavoidable precursor to the End Times.  Anyone who does not support Israel militarily is therefore considered an enemy of God. (Not everything called Christian Zionism falls under this definition.  See Israel Matters and The New Christian Zionism by Gerald R. McDermott)

I reject Christian Zionism as described above because it is a form of Millennialism, which the Augsburg Confession rejects in Article XVII.  I also reject Christian Zionism because I reject the notion that a person’s rights should be based on their religion or ethnicity.  In other words, I am a “classical liberal”.   I support a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, in which Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and people of other religions have equal political and human rights.

Having said that, I would like to ask why some Lutherans of the left refuse to distance themselves from groups that deny the right of Israel to exist, that teach violent Antisemitism, and that use Marxist dualism to justify violence and terrorism? A very concrete example of the refusal to renounce Christian Marxist Antisemitism occurred at the 2024 Synod Assembly of the Florida-Bahamas Synod, ELCA.  In a resolution entitled Resolution 24-02 Palestinian Advocacy and Dismantling Christian Zionism in Our Churches, the assembly lamented the destruction caused by Israeli attacks in Gaza, saying

Be it Resolved, The Florida Bahamas Synod in Assembly laments both the destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure, housing, schools and universities, hospitals, and places of worship–and the millions of people who are experiencing displacement, facing malnutrition, and starvation, as a result primarily of Israel’s continuing air strikes and blocking entry of humanitarian aid trucks…

Among other things, it also recommends that congregations learn about the  SUMUD initiative and spend at least three hours of adult education time in the next three months in learning more about the conflict, occupation and Christian Zionism.  Missing is any condemnation of HAMAS for the killing of 1200 people in Israel on October 7, 2023, or of any attribution of responsibility to HAMAS for starting the war that is now devastating Gaza. 

Consider an earlier part of the resolution:

Whereas, The ELCA Presiding Bishop, Elizabeth Eaton, on October 13, 2023 denounced the attacks and hostage-taking on October 7, 2023, by HAMAS and has denounced the subsequent disproportionate death toll among Palestinian civilians; as reported by the United Nations, more than thirty-four thousand civilians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023 ; https://elca.org/News-and-Events/8207…

Please notice two things.  First, while the resolution mentions that Bishop Eaton denounced the attacks and hostage taking, it never joins her in that denunciation.  Secondly, while it mentions the number of people killed by Israel in Gaza, it never mentions the number killed by HAMAS on October 7.

Is this an oversight?  Did the resolution simply assume that everyone denounces HAMAS and its ideology?  Sadly, the answer is no.  An amendment was proposed that clarified things by adding the following words:

and emphatically denounce the following Palestinian groups that have been involved in politically motivated violence to include the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of organizations[sic], Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Abu Nidal Organization, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas,

However, the Florida-Bahamas Synod declined. Why? The only answer that I can see is a convergence
of historic Christian Antisemitism and Christian Marxism. The Antisemitism of the Christian left follows
the Marxist practice of dividing all of humanity into oppressor and oppressed. This Marxist dualism sees the oppressor as always evil and the oppressed as always innocent. Furthermore, the oppressed are never really responsible for their actions. Whatever they might do, even if it involves the kind of
atrocities perpetrated on October 7, it is never their fault. The oppressor drove them to it. As Bishop
Eaton said in her letter on October 13, 2023, to which the resolution refers,

We must also call a thing a thing. The power exerted against all Palestinian people — through the occupation, the expansion of settlements and the escalating violence — must be called out as a root cause of what we are witnessing. 

Bp. Eaton

According Bishop Eaton, the root cause of the violent Antisemitism of HAMAS, is Israel. The Florida-
Bahamas Synod Assembly concurs. The refusal to denounce HAMAS and other militant groups is
intentional. So, one would guess, is the refusal to address the Antisemitic rhetoric, intimidation, and
violence at anti-Israel rallies in the U.S.

As a “conservative” Lutheran I am glad to renounce Christian Zionism. Are there any “liberal” or
“progressive” Lutherans who are willing to renounce Christian Marxist Antisemitism?

The following letter was sent in June 2015 to the sixty-five synodical bishops of the ELCA and to Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in favor of same-sex marriages. Of the sixty-six people who received the letter, CORE heard back from only one – the bishop of the Oregon Synod – and he basically minimized our concerns.

 

June 28, 2015

Dear

Thank you for the ministry of oversight which you are providing for the Church.  God has entrusted you with the enormous responsibility to care for His flock, for whom our Lord Jesus Christ gave His life.

The social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” as approved by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August 2009, describes four different positions that members of the ELCA hold “with conviction and integrity” regarding same-gender relationships.  After acknowledging that “at this time this church lacks consensus on this matter,” the social statement then continues with these words: “Regarding our life together as we live with disagreement, the people in this church will continue to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment, pastoral care, and mutual respect.”  

I am writing as president of the board of Lutheran CORE on behalf of all the pastors and congregations of the ELCA who do not celebrate and agree with the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage.  Many are wondering what impact this ruling will have upon them both now and in the future.  Some are wondering whether the law will continue to allow them to marry and not marry according to their religious convictions, and what will happen if the laws were to be changed.   Some are wondering whether in the future churches will lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to perform or host same-sex marriages.  Some are wondering what steps they should be taking now to preserve and protect their legal right to not perform same-sex marriages.  

The human sexuality social statement also states, “The ELCA recognizes that it has a pastoral responsibility to all children of God.”  I am writing to encourage you in your calling to uphold this principle and to ask how you will do so.  Since 2009, those who have supported the changes in our teaching on sexuality and marriage have seen those changes confirmed and supported in many concrete ways: the ordination of practicing homosexuals, public statements by various leaders of the ELCA, a new working group on ministry to same-gendered families, and an increased tolerance of transgenderism, to name a few examples.  Lutheran CORE and its constituents do not believe that equal confirmation and support have been afforded those of a traditional mindset.  How will you now unreservedly lend your affirmation, pastoral care, and episcopal defense to those who uphold the traditional view of marriage?     

Thank you, again, for your ministry of leadership, oversight, and pastoral care.  And thank you for your attention and response to our concern.  

 

Sincerely,

Dennis D. Nelson

Retired ELCA Pastor, President of the Board of Lutheran CORE