Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Leftist Jews Distrust Evangelical Christians
When I was attending Cal State Long Beach, I remember one lunchtime when I was approached in the cafeteria by a young man. I don’t remember exactly what he asked me, but I know it had to do with Jesus, and I was immediately put off. I had spent most of my growing up years feeling like an outsider (as a Jew) and a heretic (for not accepting Jesus), and I brusquely rejected his inquiry. He politely walked away, but his unsolicited inquiry has stayed with me.
But my perspective towards Christians in general and Evangelicals specifically has changed dramatically. Due to the communities with which I socialize and my limited but sincere practice of Judaism, coupled with my curiosity about religions, I welcome input from my Christian friends and have found them to be very kind (except for one Ricochetee who believed that the Jewish religion was no longer relevant). So, I thought I might benefit from learning the nature of the relationship between Jews and Evangelicals, the complexity and diversity of those relationships, and how we might all benefit from knowing each other better.
By beginning with the Jews on the political Left, we can see the most current reasons for Jews rejecting and distrusting Christians:
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.
Attributing Marxist doctrine to the cause of the Palestinians was a premise I hadn’t anticipated. But considering the prevalence of Marxist ideas in this country, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
There is also another distorted set of beliefs that causes Leftist Jews to fear Evangelical Christians:
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.
Yet Jews on the Left persist in holding these flawed views. 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.
In spite of the facts, politically Leftist Jews are highly critical of the Evangelical community:
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.
There are also tensions over the belief in the end times, with a wide range of belief among the Evangelical Christians; Jews, of course, are waiting for the Messiah. A little humor goes a long way to bridging the gap:
As the late founder of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein said in a conference led by Israel365 Media in 2015, ‘When the Mashiach comes, we can ask him if this is his first time here or second. Till then, let’s focus on our shared values and opportunities together’.
I expect most Leftist Jews are not amused.
Resentment still shows up in the minds of some Jews toward Evangelical Christians, and it is critically important (and is not clear from the article cited) whether the author was personally approached by Evangelical Christians:
I have no problem with your discovering Jesus and embracing Jesus and putting your faith in Jesus – I actually support that. In fact, there’s a story about the Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov, founder of Chassidism, who wouldn’t ride with a wagon driver who didn’t wear a cross on his chest. He preferred to roam through the deserted tundra with a man who at least feared something—never mind the theological nuances.
But why can’t you keep it to yourselves? Why must you insist that I, too, reject my grandfather’s Torah, stop praying the way my family has done since the minus fifteen hundreds, and accept your Jesus, and in my heart, no less?
All religions are entitled to state their purpose and beliefs freely in this country. Unless a person is trapped in a situation where they are forced to listen to these ideas, they should appreciate that this country welcomes religious expression.
The last trend that I wanted to share is something called Replacement Theology:
Younger Evangelical Christians are increasingly distancing from Israel and are less likely to see any theological significance in the Jewish people. However, for many, this may not be the most worrisome development in and of itself. What is more concerning is that it is likely correlated with the fact that more young people are adopting Replacement Theology—believing that upon the birth of Jesus, the Jewish people ceased its role as the chosen people and the Church subsequently replaced them. Many of them are Millennials (34%) even though they only represent 22% of all Evangelical Christians.
These Millennials are today’s young leaders in the United States—in churches, business and government. This trend is unsettling because history has shown that Replacement Theology has produced both antisemitic and anti-Israel sentiments. Especially in European history, those holding positions of Replacement Theology have viewed God as being finished with the Jewish people and Jews as disloyal by being “responsible” for the crucifixion of Jesus. Historically, this has been the source of many antisemitic tropes.
I had not heard about this theology before, and wondered if others had. I’m not here to debate its validity, but only say that it does raise concerns for me.
Finally, this statement summed up my own views toward Evangelical Christians and Christians in general:
Well, our interests with the Evangelical community are aligned. Evangelical supporters have been Israel’s best friends. They have supported the Israeli government, have invested funds in our startup nation and donated over 1.5 billion dollars to organizations we work with. Most importantly, they believe in the same Bible Passage in Genesis that we do. Do we really want to throw out the baby with the bathwater just because we don’t agree with their eschatology?
My Christian friends, Evangelical or otherwise, are a blessing in my life. I’m so grateful for your love and support, and welcome your input to this post.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
I hope it comes with pictures. But now you’ve got me looking at other books, like this one. Very interesting. The picture does remind me of family get togethers; the parents in the photo look a lot like my grandparents. Even the father’s hat.
Aromas of Aleppo: The Legendary Cuisine of Syrian Jews
But I digress.
If one takes a look at the western world beyond the United States, it’s not entirely clear that religious belief prevents general craziness.
Take Northern Ireland as an example. A century ago it really mattered to the protestants of Northern Ireland that they not be governed by the Catholics that dominated the rest of the island.
But given the secularization of Ireland, many people in Northern Ireland are less concerned about whether they are part of the United Kingdom or part of Ireland.
The idea that Protestants and Catholics should spend their energies slaughtering each other over this issue doesn’t resonate when people are more secular than religious in their thinking.
Sometimes a weakening of religious belief can reduce civil conflict in society. But there is also the case of forced atheism under Communism which provides a stark counter example.
Also, if life in a religious culture was so meaningful and lacking in anomie, why did people stop believing in the gods they believed in? Was there not something about their religion that made them less happy or else they never would have stopped attending religious services?
Correct, but they also have replaced Christianity, which, like Judaism was based on a valid revelation but became hopelessly corrupt. Islam is the true, original religion. Abraham was Muslim.
People do not convert to Islam, they revert to Islam. Pagans must do so or die. Jews and Christians, as a courtesy to their history, are offered a third choice: abase themselves and accept a low status; provided that they do so the “die” part is suspended. Step out of line (or, on many occasions throughout history have something a Muslim wants—and since part of your status is that a Muslim’s testimony in court trumps yours)—and “die” is back on the table.
Satan shmaytan.
@susanquinn – I am the only one here who gives you the respect that an adult with full moral agency is entitled to. Special pleading etc might feel good but it’s nothing but the soft bigotry of lower expectations.
I don’t think that what you say about respect is correct, Zafar.
I don’t know what you mean by “special pleading” in this context.
Yes indeed. Although there is a hierarchy to Muslim hatreds. Note, for example, the old Muslim jihad slogan “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people”, sometimes abbreviated as “After Saturday comes Sunday”.
Those who have submitted to Muslim rule are known as dhimmi.
Sharia law says that even the most mild and peaceful request for more gentle treatment is grounds for killing.
I don’t know what you are talking about, Zafar. Would you like to clarify?
Religion is a powerful identity marker, so of course different classes, tribes, etc. use it when they have conflicts. I was never convinced the Irish thing was about religion. The English kings and then Cromwell happened to be a Protestant when the set the stage for the troubles.
As for why people leave religion, one theory is a lot of it is due to the notion that nowadays we can explain everything without it, with science, (which placards in front of houses in the Boston suburbs declare “Is Real” just as “Black Lives Matter.”) Technological progress is so amazing it is easy to think “New ideas good. Old ones bad.” The sexual revolution had a big effect too, I think. As did the clerical scandals and hypocricy. Popular culture is FAR more pervasive than a sermon once a week. And music and movies from the sixties have been doing some powerful preachin for the “self is all” camp. The idea that it is wrong to judge AT ALL managed to supplant the idea that it is wrong to be self-righteous, hard hearted, and “judgmental”. That is to say, secular dogma came to hold that judging in itself was wrong. “Don’t blame the victim, don’t shame the slut,” etc. So in attacking snobbism and cruelty, the primary act of the mind (judgment) was also attacked. “Who are YOU to judge?” or the more academic “there can be no privilidged point of view in reading this poem, blah blah so how can ther be a canon, blah blah?” Churches are places where judgments matter, so that too produced a conflict of values for many, I think.
Liberalism promised freedom from the “superstition” and “guilt” of religion and, with existentialism, a substitute for a really existing God: make your own God. This freedom was supposed to make us happy. It has failed. So we seem to just push it further along: “essentialism” is wrong, you can be anything you want to be, all that matters is consent, the only truth is your personal truth, biological sex does not exist, etc.
Man is a religious animal. I prefer a time-tested religion that says “all are children of God, all are sinners; repent and love God and each other” to the newer ones like fascism, communism, wokeism, etc. which always seem to pick out a group of humans (capitalist, Jews, whites) to demonize.
And here I thought I was giving you the respect that an adult with full moral agency is entitled to.
My bad.
AMEN!!
For shame!! Tsk, tsk.
Temper thy justice with mercy young knight for we hope that G-d will do so with us on our day of judgement.
I think man is both a religious animal but also a skeptical animal. I understand why Ayaan Hirsi Ali decided to reject the religious faith, Islam, that she was raised to believe.
I imagine it isn’t not easy coming to the conclusion that ones parents, friends and community authority figures told you things that aren’t true. Yet when Ayaan Hirsi Ali was told that she must marry a distant cousin, she fled and became an apostate.
The person who attends a snake handling church might be told that if you have faith in Jesus, a poisonous snake can bit you and no harm will come to you. But one might lack confidence that these assertions are actually true, especially when the pastor of that church is bitten by a snake and dies in the hospital. It’s best to keep religious claims outside the reach of verifiability.
A clever stock market guru will tell you that “the stock market is going to crash,” never specifying in which year the stock market will crash. If the stock market doesn’t crash, the guru can always say, “You just wait.”
Similarly, when a religious leader says, “Jesus is coming soon,” he’s smart to not provide a specific time when this will happen.
Edgar Whisenant, a NASA engineer, wrote the book “88 reasons why the Rapture will be in 1988.” He was asked, “But the bible says that we won’t know the hour or the day.” He responded, “That’s right. I can’t tell you the hour or the day this will occur. But I can tell you the week.”
When 1988 came and went, Whisenant said there was an error in his calculations and the Rapture would really happen in 1989. But when 1989 came and went, I bet some people started getting suspicious.
I think this is one of the reasons why some people get disillusioned with the religion on which they were raised. If the expectations are set too high and with too much specificity, the chances for unfulfilled expectations are high.
One woman lost her Christian faith, in part, when she visited Cambodia as part of a college course (she was attending a Christian college). She said the skulls from the Cambodian genocide and wondered, “What plan did God have for these people?” Some people gravitate towards religions in the face of tragedy while others fall away from it.
HW, you raise a number of interesting issues, but I’m going to address just one.
If she didn’t have an answer to that question, then she was quite clueless about Christianity, in my view.
Most Christian churches don’t appear to teach these things very well. It is sad. However, we are without excuse. The Bible is very clear about these answers. Most people don’t seem to like the answers very much.
Did she at least read Victor Frankl to hear the best argument.
Well, Henry, you’re not a believer, right? Viktor Frankl is not the best Christian argument. It’s not a Christian argument at all. A Jewish psychologist/neurologist is not a good source for the Christian viewpoint, I think.
I’ve read his book, and it didn’t strike me as being religious, even from a Jewish standpoint. I would think that a believing Jew to be looking to Leviticus 26/Deuteronomy 28 (about the Holocaust) and Job (about bad things generally). I don’t recall Frankl doing this at all, though it has been a couple of years since I read his book.
Although, I don’t recall any Jewish figure, religious or otherwise, considering these particular Old Testament references when evaluating the Holocaust. I do admit that I haven’t gone looking for Jewish theological perspectives on this, but the overwhelming theme seems to be “never again” rather than “what did we do wrong?”
Victor Frankl had pretty good theodicy I thought. At the very least, it gave me pause to think that a Jew who suffered through the Holocaust could retain his faith. He could see the skulls in Cambodia and still believe.
Now that you mention it, I think you are correct that he wasn’t exactly Thomas Aquinas with his argument but what I remember is how he acknowledged how horrible everything was. It was indeed an emotional argument for his G-d but I have some
sympathyempathy for the lady looking at the skulls and being overwhelmed by emotion.Theodicy is often highly emotional. I don’t think it can be otherwise. Aristotle help me for giving so much respect to Pathos.
This woman, who explained the different events that seemed to have led to her de-conversion from Christiainity, mentions in one of her YouTube videos that her mother was not a very consistent Christian, in terms of attending church and what not. But her grandparents were very consistent churchgoers and it was the influence of her grandparents that convinced her to take her Christian faith seriously.
This woman told her mother before her high school years started that she wanted to be home schooled because public high school would be a non-Christian education. In other words, this woman took her Christianity seriously. She wanted to go to a Christian college, not a secular college.
It’s just that a series of life experiences, including but not limited to visiting Cambodia, that caused her to have a “faith crisis.”
I am not saying that this woman was right or wrong to react in the way she did when she wondered why God would allow those Cambodians to be murdered. I am just saying this is part of why she de-converted.
Not only are you telling Christians how they should view Judaism, you’re telling Jews how they should view Judaism.
Now do Jainism and Rastafarianism.
Jainism is very hard to understand to non-Indians and Rastafarianism is garbage. We should stick with Jews and Christians.
So I don’t get to present my viewpoint, is that how this works?
Because when I do, and when I back it up with the Scriptures, you criticize me for telling people how they should view things. That’s not a valid criticism.
I was initially inclined to decline to respond to Susan’s post, but your comment #1 changed my mind. You made an assertion about people believing an idea supported by a sound Scriptural argument being “not raised right,” and made a brief argument dismissive of what you called “Replacement Theology.” I countered with Scriptural references rebutting your point, as did others.
I don’t think that you responded to this at all.
If you’re a believer, I recommend that you carefully read and consider the Scriptures cited, by myself and others. If you’re not a believer, then I don’t see why you’d care about Scriptural arguments.
I have almost no knowledge of Jainism or Rastafarianism, and I’m not really interested in them, so I’m not going to address this.
I do have quite a bit of knowledge about the Old Testament, which is also believed by Jews (well, mostly). Most of them sure seem to ignore quite a bit of it, as far as I can tell. I would actually be interested in Jewish responses on these issues, but we haven’t really had any thus far. (iWe did respond to my point about modern Israel not even obeying the part of the Scriptures that modern, believing Jews profess to believe, by agreeing, I think — at least, I interpret “you really are not wrong” as agreement.)
Re-reading it this morning, Susan, I am also a bit baffled.
Fetishising a group – positively or negatively – stereotypes and somewhat dehumanises the individuals in that group.
Perhaps that.
Zafar. I have paid attention to what you write. You are the one who fetishizes groups. Where did Susan Quinn fetishize groups?
I didn’t say that she did, Henry.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who finds myself in that place!
You leave me no choice but to like the comment in question.
I’d be interested to learn what you think would be the best quotations from the Bible that would explain to someone wondering why God didn’t intervene to prevent the Cambodian genocide, since you seem very familiar with the Bible, both the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) and the Greek Bible (The New Testament).
Are there some particular verses that come to mind for you? Or is it a general theological outlook that best explains this?