Demolishing Strongholds
Hello Crossleft Community:
This is an article I wrote for the inaugural edition of the Crossleft webzine on 12-15-05. I'm dusting it off and placing it before our community once again. Some of you won't agree with my opening spiritual analysis which is OK. However, I do hope you will move on to the meat of the vision that addresses volunteer researchers and writers contributing to a Progressive Christian think tank.
The Institute for Progressive Christianity was still on the drawing board at that time and we were laboring to design the unheard of concept of launching a research institute with no budget. The following document lays out some vision proposals for how that might happen with God's help. The IPC is now a reality and is still under funded and dependent upon volunteer efforts to raise an academically astute prophetic voice in answer to the conservative and highly funded think tanks on the Right.
I thought perhaps the content of this article might speak to some of you and we could dialog a bit around implementation of some of the ideas contained therein.
Peace to you all and may God prosper us with passionate activist compassion in this New Year.
Gary
Demolishing Strongholds
There is a covert war raging all about us and most people are not aware of this fact. This war has well funded strategists that are systematically orchestrating an assault on every citizen in America. The aggressors in this war exercise no restraint in their ambitions for dominance. Our whole government and way of life as we know it could be the ultimate casualty of this advancing menace. An insatiable craving that originates in greed drives this charge and justice on every front is currently being trampled as this agenda advances. The physical perpetrators of this threat are not the real enemy, but merely pawns that are inspired and manipulated by something much larger.
I am not talking about the War on Terror or any foreign plot to topple our nation. The enemy that must be exposed is much more ancient and sinister than any single historical foe and is identified plainly in Ephesians 6:12. This verse says, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
This ancient enemy of the Kingdom of Heaven has continued relentlessly through out the ages in an unholy quest to manifest dominion in all spheres of life. The dark kingdom from which this mandate emanates has no physical weapons that can be used against humanity. There is only one weapon that is wielded in this conspiracy and it is only workable in one very specific location. The battlefield of this war is contained entirely within the realm of the human mind.
This is a war of competing ideologies that have the capacity to either enslave or liberate the masses. Ideas that are evil in nature are inspired by the dark side and precede the actual physical assaults on individuals and institutions that follow.
Billions of corporate dollars are spent annually on research institutes whose primary focus is to develop and disseminate these ideas into the mainstream of human consciousness. Twisted justification philosophies and mass-marketing schemes are designed to mask avarice. The only people who actually benefit from these developments are the small percentage of citizens that comprise the ruling upper class as they accrue more wealth and power.
The inevitable inequities that follow on this path are experienced first by the lower income class. The debilitating erosion of benefits and opportunities associated with citizenship then creeps up into the lower middle class as it makes a steady ascent up the ladder of social dominance. This escalation causes larger numbers of people to find themselves fettered by the shackles of poverty. The ultimate demonic goal of this movement is to totally subdue the hope and the resources of all but a very few at the top.
Christians are charged by scripture to resist evil and to advance God’s Kingdom. This holy mandate involves both aggressive fighting and constructive building and these two pursuits must not be seen as mutually exclusive. Tools and swords were placed in the hands of the laborers that undertook the rebuilding of the wall around Jerusalem under Nehemiah’s direction. The same approach is prerequisite for Kingdom servants today.
Christians that think pacifism should be translated into the ideological battles of today make a fatally strategic mistake. Turning the other cheek should be embraced as the Christian response to personal and physical affronts. However, resisting evil should not be perceived as passive resistance in the war of ideas. Winning this battle requires a very pro-active and aggressive strategy that will involve forceful advancement. II Corinthians 10:3-5 offers insight into both the means and method of engaging in this warfare when it says, “3 for though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
What are these otherworldly weapons that contain this divine demolishing power? Where are they to be found and how can they be utilized to demolish the strongholds of the adversary? These questions should not be considered as rhetorical. Discovering the answers to this query needs to be seen as critically vital to winning this life and death struggle.
The strongholds identified in the Corinthian text relate to philosophies and ideologies that oppose the righteous knowledge and purposes of God. Pretentious and prevalent arguments that oppose the advancement of the Kingdom of Heaven can only be demolished by divinely inspired arguments that flow from the revelatory mind of Christ. What would Jesus say and how would He say it? Finding His words and effectively proclaiming them to the governed and the government is the only way to demolish the strongholds that are currently entrenched in the ruling powers.
The Christian fundamentalist movement in politics has breached the wall that separated the institution of government from the institution of religion. The commingling of these two separate entities has brought forth a perversion of both. The rest of the world now views Christianity and America through this distorted lens. This projected delusional image is a powerful stronghold that must be attacked and demolished. A progressive Christian voice that advocates for separation of church and state, righteous government and a broad spectrum of justice issues must be injected into the national debate.
We need not bother taking contrived Christian-speak into this battle. We need to speak in the vibrant language that expresses the values of the Kingdom and trust that this will resonate in the market place of political ideas with all people of compassion and integrity. I am not proposing that we devise a new vocabulary for expressing our faith-centered values in the political arena. We already possess the vocabulary.
Most of us, striving for appropriateness, are comfortable interchanging the words of the Kingdom from specific to general whether we are in the church or one of the various arenas of the world. We have operated in the secular world as people of faith without overtly mentioning that we are Christians. We generally tend to think that our actions will speak louder than our words and there is great truth in that philosophy. However, now we must begin to couple our actions with words that explain why we are activists.
I believe the key to communicating the progressive Christian message is to utilize our God given compassion as we mount a passionate advocacy for Kingdom values such as mercy, truth and integrity in policy and programs. We need to attack and demolish the foundational premises of the right and counter with Divinely inspired propositions that will appeal to all people of noble character whether they believe in God or not.
Most progressives already commonly share the central societal values of the Kingdom of God even if they don’t share the same faith perspective. Christians don’t exclusively hold the patents on virtue, integrity, truth or compassion, but we do have the moral charge to advocate for these qualities and others like them. The Bible clearly reveals the heart of God for humanity and offers powerful support for the primary issues of concern for all progressives.
These scriptures need to be discovered and implemented in discussion and debate with our conservative Christian counterparts. Fundamentalists are very keen on abiding by Biblical mandates concerning all matters. Most fundamental adherents and progressive Christians alike are unaware of the iron clad Biblical arguments for governmental intervention in matters of poverty, healthcare, immigration, environment etc. Succinct scripture based arguments that expose the conservative philosophy as devoid of Christian values rather than a sustainer of them must be developed. Progressive Christian positions should in turn be soundly based on the Bible.
There is much developmental work to be done in the realm of delivering the progressive Christian perspective. One problem that must be corrected is that we have been tolerant and non-judgmental to a fault. It is time for prophetic voices to clearly identify and confront the fallacies that have been concocted in conservative think tanks and publicly judge them according to righteous judgment. These competing ideologies must be demolished point by blessed point. The delivery system for our arguments must be passionate, aggressive, fact driven and done decently without resorting to base or insulting language.
The Christian voice that dominates the landscape of our public life is not reflective of the heart of God as revealed in the Bible. Progressive Christians are being compelled to enter the debate located in the awkward arena of political discussion. Our task does not require us to contrive ideas that will be slick enough to outwit the deep thinkers of the right. Our challenge is to use the mighty weapons of God that are filled with divine power and then go about demolishing every argument and pretense that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.
Therefore, our researchers are challenged to be humble and studious servants that are devoted to the Kingdom of Heaven and have ears to hear what the Spirit is saying to the church and the nation. Much prayerful research and analysis is required as nuggets of scripture are mined and wise ideas are forged that point the way to policy proposals that will reflect the heart of God. It will take genuine faith to find the brilliant and innovative solutions to the many acute problems that bedevil our society.
CrossLeft is an organization that has become a primary portal for linking the many varied expressions and groups in the progressive Christian movement. CrossLeft will soon inaugurate a research institute that will be aggressively undertaking the challenges detailed above. This think tank is deliberately placing a considerable degree of dependency upon the efforts of volunteer researchers and writers whose works will be placed alongside that of professionals. The call is officially being sent out to the four winds for the workers and the warriors to come forth.
I have a growing vision of two vast supply sources that can produce the researchers and writers that must be assembled for this holy venture. I see young Spirit led volunteers scattered throughout seminaries and universities receiving divine inspiration for the answers to our most perplexing problems. I see a holy zeal pouring out in them as they craft the most noble and passionate arguments ever devised for public debate. I also see silver haired and wizened retired men and women who have been relegated to their rockers being utilized rather than forgotten. They have wisdom that can temper the passion of young innovators and balance the new with the proven.
Simon Peter quoted the prophet Joel on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2: 17 “In the Last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams.”
The prophecy of Joel is what I see unfolding in the progressive Christian movement as the war of ideas rages against the Kingdom of Heaven and the inhabitants of the earth.
Further Exploration
Gary,,
I'm new to Crossleft and a simple toe-dip to test the waters just didn't seem appropriate, so here we go head first into deep waters.
The sentence below from your piece presents a veritable cornucopia of opportunities for training in the methods and weapons of the warfare you describe.
"Most fundamental adherents and progressive Christians alike are unaware of the iron clad Biblical arguments for governmental intervention in matters of poverty, healthcare, immigration, environment etc."
You made a quite challenging statement and one could infer that you have some specific examples of the Biblical arguments in the listed areas. Please share your knowledge and since I am rookie, a quick narrative on your manner of scriptural interpretation will provide a compass heading to follow.
Always In His Service!
Peter
"Iron clad" might be too strong
Welcome Peter. It's great to have new voices participating in these discussions. Your question here is certainly a fair one and I'm sure Gary will want to weigh in here, but I thought I might take a stab at answering your question.
I definitely understand and agree with the sentiment that Gary expresses in the quote that you have cited. However, I would likely have hedged the wording a bit. I'm not sure an iron clad case can be made for Christian governmental involvement in any shape from scripture. There is no treatise on government in the Bible. The writers of the Bible ostensibly never envisioned followers of Christ having a decisive role in government and laws. While there are passages that instruct us how to respond to a government that is not Christian and even one that is hostile towards Christians. However, the idea that Christians might one day be in positions of power and influence doesn't seem to have occurred to the apostles.
Some take the lack of instruction on government involvement to be equivalent to a proscription. I would disagree. In my mind, the fact that democracy gives us the ability to influence laws and government for good and to further the kingdom is a gift. By abstaining from participation, we would be, in essence, burying a talent (Luke 19:26). If we accept the assertion that Christians ought to utilize their democratic influence to further God's kingdom, the question then becomes 'how do we further the kingdom of God by democratic participation?' and 'What kinds of laws and policies ought to receive the support of Christians?'
I don't have the time right now to adequately piece together a scriptural defense of governmental involvement related to poverty, healthcare, immigration, and the environment, but I do agree with Gary that we can make a very strong case for these. For now, I just wanted to set forth a beginning point for such a discussion.
David
Excellent piece and question
Gary you make an excellent point in "we have been tolerant and non-judgmental to a fault. It is time for prophetic voices to clearly identify and confront the fallacies that have been concocted in conservative think tanks and publicly judge them according to righteous judgment. These competing ideologies must be demolished point by blessed point. The delivery system for our arguments must be passionate, aggressive, fact driven and done decently without resorting to base or insulting language."
I actually completely agree, but i'm wondering how you believe we can do that without sometime being confrontational, especially with strident conservative voices. In some ways, its a question as to whether Edwards or Obama is right in how to bring about change. Edwards has been more confrontational, believing that power cedes nothing without struggle. Obama has been presenting a positive idealistic message with very little confrontation.
I think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle and based on context, but would be interested in what you think. This may also connect with David's communications post: http://www.crossleft.org/?q=node/5697
Response to Steve and David
Steve, I see these issues of confrontational dialog as multi-level encounters which require responsive flexibility and adaptation to the varying individuals or groups encountered. I like David's idea and find it to be especially effective when dealing with cantankerous individual Christians.
David wrote, "I think that Gary's essay is powerful. But as Stephen suggests I have been advocating a move away from language that posits war imagery and the idea of good versus evil. To me, the idea of humility compels us to withhold from the notion that we have the absolute answer. Merely admitting that we could be wrong in spite of our best human efforts to follow God's word and His will can bring an entirely different dynamic to a conflict."
I believe confrontational mode can be facilitated with graceful humility when needed. This can be very disarming and assisting in finding common ground with someone initiating a confrontation. I believe we should always strive to ascertain the commonalities we might share with our opposition and then use that as a starting point.
David also said, "Dialogic communication is a mutual endeavor to transcend differences. It is characterized by an explorative bent. It is aimed at understanding the other’s positions and worldview on a deep level. Participants strive to both understand and to be understood. The conversation should uncover and create awareness of assumptions that are made by both sides in a respectful and safe environment.
By contrast, a discursive context, which Pearce says is the prevailing context in our society, is marked by adversarialism and the intent to defeat a perceived enemy. Participants talk at each other rather than to each other. Dialogic communication identifies the essential and immutable beliefs and values that constitute participants identity. This type of interaction engenders respect rather than rivalry and can restore the perception of humanity in participants who once thought of each other as threatening and dangerous opponents."
Again, this is a wonderful statement of wisdom offering guidance into constructive dialog with individuals on many fronts. However, it requires a willingness for both parties to accept these ground rules and that is not always attainable.
Steve, you said,"I actually completely agree, but I'm wondering how you believe we can do that without sometime being confrontational, especially with strident conservative voices."
Oh, I think we are required to be confrontational at times. Let's use discretion when choosing our battles and wisdom on what tact to take when we choose to engage. David's dialogic communication can be very helpful in dealing with our conservative visitors to Crossleft. Steve, you astutely point out the two approaches of Edwards and Obama as contrasted. This is going to be a tough battle and ultimately I believe Obama will have to take off the gloves and slug it out with Hillary and Edwards. He will most certainly then be in a bloody brawl if he gets the nomination and enters the general election. There will be no quarter given. Meanwhile, his positive message seems to be resonating and gaining traction for now.
The point of "Demolishing Strongholds" was an attempt to pull back the curtain and reveal there are extremely dedicated and vile perpetrators with conspiratorial, greed driven agendas that are striving for world dominion. This is a different arena than our tame blogosphere where we occasionally encounter a challenging voice and can take a more laid back tactical and conciliatory approach. These enemies of humanity are not playing games and will not abide by the sensible or respectful framework outlined by David.
These people play for keeps and resort to violence (war and assassinations) when their ideologies and schemes are threatened by the ideas of good visionary folks like JFK, Bobby or Dr. King, especially after their messages gained momentum. Look at the decades mostly bereft and void of idealism and real activism in their absence. We must view ourselves as the idealists who "Have a Dream" and realize that we are caught up in a war whether we like the terminology or not. I said in the essay, "The aggressors in this war exercise no restraint in their ambitions for dominance and is a war of competing ideologies that have the capacity to either enslave or liberate the masses."
David said, "To me, the idea of humility compels us to withhold from the notion that we have the absolute answer. Merely admitting that we could be wrong in spite of our best human efforts to follow God's word and His will can bring an entirely different dynamic to a conflict."
David, I believe humility should be maintained and considered the most powerful position to offer rebuttal or bringing forth the ideals we hold dear.
I said in the essay,"Therefore, our researchers are challenged to be humble and studious servants that are devoted to the Kingdom of Heaven and have ears to hear what the Spirit is saying to the church and the nation. Much prayerful research and analysis is required as nuggets of scripture are mined and wise ideas are forged that point the way to policy proposals that will reflect the heart of God. It will take genuine faith to find the brilliant and innovative solutions to the many acute problems that bedevil our society."
This idea doesn't claim to already know the solutions, it simply offers exhortation into a spiritual way of finding them. This takes faith and prayer. Are Progressive Christians theologically inclined to explore the mystical realm of Spirit in quest for Divine wisdom or not? I hope so. I am optimistic that we Christians can find the revelatory mind of Christ and make a progressive move toward finding the answers together.
Meanwhile, let's embrace as much as we can of David's constructive suggestions for guidance in the realm of questing for common ground with our fellow Christians or others. This is where we need to search for and discover collective consensus as to plans and then mount a unified lobby for compassionate justice on every front where it is lacking.
their actions ought not dictate our response
Gary,
You said, "These enemies of humanity are not playing games and will not abide by the sensible or respectful framework outlined by David. These people play for keeps and resort to violence (war and assassinations) when their ideologies and schemes are threatened by the ideas of good visionary folks like JFK, Bobby or Dr. King, especially after their messages gained momentum."
When we consider violent or militant responses to our messages, I would say that as long as we are still permitted to speak, the cause of justice and progress will ultimately triumph. Allow me to relate an anecdote.
A couple of months ago, endeavoring to grow my own understanding of the commitments and groundings for the religious right, I called the Christian Coalition to ask them questions about the meaning of the terms "family values" and "pro-family" as they use it on their website. Speaking with a representative who spent 10 minutes ducking and dodging my question 'how do you determine what constitutes a "pro-family" stance or how does your organization define a "family value"?' Ultimately our conversation was abruptly ended when the woman hung up on me.
Reflecting on that incident I've drawn a few conclusions. Her response was one of fear. I believe that the philosophic and theological underpinnings of the religious right are disjointed and inherently inconsistent and problematic. When pressed, people who have invested their lives and personal identities in their politics are likely to experience cognitive dissonance and fear. By drawing a line in the sand and upping the rhetoric, we are only likely to escalate the adversarial mentality. In a few people that may eventually be manifest in a violent response. It is true that this may occur even if we maintain a positive and constructive message. Change can be frightening and threatening, but I believe dialogue can help alleviate the perception of a threat.
One of the recurrent references in the conflict resolution and communication literature that I have encountered is to Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Kuhn examines the history of science and in particular he focuses on those periods in which new paradigms or explanatory models emerge and are accepted. Like our political culture, the scientific community has its own unique culture and language. Kuhn observed that there has never been a period of total satisfaction with existing paradigms because there are always little problems and irregularities that exist. As the scientists try to work these problems out, they often try to modify existing theories. However, there often arises a point of crisis. When that occurs, the scientific community focuses on the problem and eventually a new and often creative solution (inevitably with its own set of new problems) is proposed and accepted. As long as science can progress in a somewhat normal state, they will accept the status quo.
The analogy is not perfect because the scientific community has an agreed upon fundamental framework to which they can appeal for rejecting or accepting scientific arguments and assertions. However, this is why it is so important for us to find common ground with the opposition. We need to expose those inconsistencies and problems within their "paradigm", but we also need to be able to show them how they can maintain their core values as Christians (even as theologically conservative Christians) while accepting a new political paradigm. This will reduce the degree of dissonance and anxiety and hopefully violence and rhetoric.
David
David, I agree...justice will triumph
David, you said,"When we consider violent or militant responses to our messages, I would say that as long as we are still permitted to speak, the cause of justice and progress will ultimately triumph."
I agree and truly believe "The pen is more mighty than the sword." I also believe that truth and justice will triumph over evil.
Let me clarify who I was referring to when I spoke of those who resort to violence when striving to ensure their supremacy. I didn't mean to imply the Religious Right there. I am talking about the elite few who actually hold an ever growing economic sway over the resources of our planet. These people have developed an ideology that is a threat to the welfare of humanity. I believe we must develop a clear analytical assessment of this corrupted ideal and offer an inspired progressive and merciful alternative ideology.
Remember the phrase,"Compassionate Conservatism"? This is a classic example of conservative think tank fodder. Or how about,"kinder, gentler nation"? Neil Young said it more truthfully..."kinder,gentler machine gun hand." Or how about "The Republican Party is the family values party"? These catch phrases and marketing schemes have served to help keep a vital fraction of the voting majority pulling the wrong levers in voting booths.
This type of superficial yet effective sloganeering needs to be challenged forcefully in the arena of debate and stripped of its air of moral superiority and fully exposed as the corrupt value system that it is. The classic rules of civil debate are still useful and desirable in this particular arena where ideas are compared on a global and national scale and where the quality of life for the masses is decided.
The neo-conservative power brokers in finance and government are simply using the Christian Right as one of the demographical voting blocs that help keep them in power. I don't think we should view the believers to the right of us as the enemy or feel the need to attack and destroy their ideology. However, there are constructive ways to engage them. I believe your advocacy for congenial,humble honest questing for understanding and ultimately cooperation should be a guiding format in dealing with folks on this level.
language is powerful
I think that Gary's essay is powerful. But as Stephen suggests I have been advocating a move away from language that posits war imagery and the idea of good versus evil. To me, the idea of humility compels us to withhold from the notion that we have the absolute answer. Merely admitting that we could be wrong in spite of our best human efforts to follow God's word and His will can bring an entirely different dynamic to a conflict.
David
Yes, Language is Powerful
Again as a rookie here, I was contemplating Gary's use of war references. His passion does quite literally jump off the page.
Peter
Welcome Peter
Welcome Peter and I hope you continue to participate in the community. I agree about Gary...he is one of the powerful prophetic voices in America today.
holy zeal, passion, visions and dreams
Thanks greatly for the above Gary, i know what you mean.
I have had dreams and I do have visions of The Body whole and strong.
And PASSIONATE ZEAL; a heart on fire with compassion for all is required.
The Body of Christ in the USA is weak because of many things.
When we are ignorant of history, we will repeat the same mistakes.
Before Emperor Constantine brought Christianity into the mainstream, all the early Church Fathers taught that Christians should not serve in the army but instead willingly suffer rather than inflict harm on any other.
St. Augustine was the first Church Father to consider the concept of a Just War. Within 100 years after Constantine, the Empire required that all soldiers in the army must be baptized Christians and thus, the decline of Christianity began.
With the justification of war and violence supplied by Augustine’s Just War Theory, wrong became right.
Nothing much has changed in two millennia, for in today’s Orwellian world politicians claim the way to peace is through war and that nuclear weapons provide protection.
I don’t care who wears the uniform, or how noble they believe their cause, war is the ultimate form of terrorism for any civilian caught in the crossfire of violence.
Even as a kid, I could not understand the logic that promoted the need for Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save American lives; and why there was never a mention of repentance for the innocent that died.
Eisenhower warned America not to bind our economy to the Industrial Military Complex. But, like most prophets, he was ignored.
In 313 AD, Emperor Constantine legitimized Christianity and thus, those who had been considered rebels and outlaws began to enjoy political power and prestige.
Jesus’ other name is The Prince of Peace, and with the marriage of church and state, his true teachings were reinterpreted. The justification of warfare and the use of state sponsored violence corrupted what Christ modeled and taught.
Jesus was always on about WAKE UP! The Divine already indwells you and all others.
Christ taught that to follow him requires that one must love ones enemies; one must forgive those who hate, curse and revile them, without a thought of payback.
Christ lived a life that proved evil can be opposed without being mirrored, and that the cycle of a “tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye”, will never bring peace and justice.
Before Emperor Constantine brought Christianity into the mainstream, all the early Church Fathers taught that Christians should not serve in the army but instead willingly suffer rather than inflict harm on any other.
The term Christianity was not coined until three decades after Christ walked the earth. Until the day of Paul, followers of Christ were called members of The Way; the way being what he taught!
Christ was never a Christian, but he was a social justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up and challenged the corrupt Temple's job security and disturbed the status quo of the Roman occupying forces by teaching that God was on the side of the poor and the outcast and God loved ALL just as they were, and in fact preferred the humble poor, outcast, widow, orphan, refugee and prisoner above the arrogant and elite.
Clement, Tertillian, Polycarp and every other early Church Father taught that violence was a contradiction of what Christ was all about.
There have always been those Christians who spoke out against this corruption of scripture and they have been ignored, reviled, rejected, mocked, persecuted and maligned throughout time.
There have always been Christians who have never abandoned the true teachings, such as the Quakers, Mennonites, some Catholics and Protestants who have been faithful witnesses to Christ by denouncing violence and caring for the poor.
I contend, because I have personal relationships with them-that there are Jews, Muslims, atheists, anarchists, and secularists who live lives that embody the message of Christ.
Every time I go to Israel and occupied Palestinian ALL the Christians there tell me the way to help them is to tell their stories.
They all say that they do not understand how USA Christians can financially support the illegal settlements and never consider that they-our sisters and brothers in Christ-the indigenous people of that land are suffering so because they have been denied the freedom to get to their legally owned land, jobs, resources, visit their families and holy sites because of the apartheid wall that has been spun as 'security' but in reality is all about ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from their homeland.
Western Christianity has been cut off from its very roots-in the land where Jesus promised it is the Peacemakers who are the children of God.
Researchers and scholars agree that by the year 2020, the Christian EXODUS will result in holy land churches that will be nothing more than museums unless things change asap.
Building the Body, must begin by connecting to our roots.
"Blessed are the Peacemakers: they are the children of God."-Jesus
Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"