John Hagee, Robert Jeffress and Christian Zionism

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This seems the only board upon which I can post this topic.

I found on Youtube a two part documentary entitled Praying for Armageddon. It was made in 2023 and primarily examines the roles of Hagee and Jeffress in promoting their view of the End Times. That both men had such close connections with Donald Trump when he was president and their continued political influence right across the USA led me to wonder what some Christians who post here think of their respective ideas.

Should the attempt to include Christian eschatology in US foreign policy be deemed appropriate? Should Christians with a particular viewpoint be gaining influence via their roles as military pastors and proselytise young recruits to their view? Is having biblical texts included on military gun sights appropriate? Is unbridled support including financial donations, for Israel whatever it does, simply exacerbating the tensions of the Middle East?

Was it wise to establish a US military base in Israel, given that, as noted by Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, military personnel have vetoed such a policy since the presidency of Truman? As he also remarked now that there is a US military base in Israel, should a group like Hezbollah launch an attack on it, that would bring the USA directly into any possible conflict in the region. He used the metaphor of the excrement hitting the fan.

The antics of Gary Burd with his array of swords and his initiation ceremony of men into his group of Knights had some distant echoes of Himmler's initiation ceremonies for the SS. One needed to simply swap the bikers leathers, tee shirts, and jeans for Hugo Boss uniforms.

After I watched the programmes I realised that it will be forty years in September since the BBC showed the superb and deeply disturbing Barry Hines drama, Threads against which the earlier 1983 US drama The Day After looked positively Disneyesque. I watched the BBC drama with friends in 1984 and have seen it several times since.. The horror of what it depicted has never left me.

The infantile insanity of those who support such individuals as Hagee and Jeffress and believe that by supporting and encouraging actions that may lead to global conflagration they will bring about the Second Coming and Armageddon is quite staggering and I wondered if those who sat in their marquee in Lebanon, Kansas applauding Mr Burd really believed they would avoid such horrors as depicted in Hines' drama, and Jesus failed to return.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Bother! I omitted the Oxford comma after Jeffress, can some kind moderator include it for me?

[Thoughtful Monk]

This seems the only board upon which I can post this topic.

I found on Youtube a two part documentary entitled Praying for Armageddon. It was made in 2023 and primarily examines the roles of Hagee and Jeffress in promoting their view of the End Times. That both men had such close connections with Donald Trump when he was president and their continued political influence right across the USA led me to wonder what some Christians who post here think of their respective ideas.

Should the attempt to include Christian eschatology in US foreign policy be deemed appropriate? Should Christians with a particular viewpoint be gaining influence via their roles as military pastors and proselytise young recruits to their view? Is having biblical texts included on military gun sights appropriate? Is unbridled support including financial donations, for Israel whatever it does, simply exacerbating the tensions of the Middle East?

Was it wise to establish a US military base in Israel, given that, as noted by Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, military personnel have vetoed such a policy since the presidency of Truman? As he also remarked now that there is a US military base in Israel, should a group like Hezbollah launch an attack on it, that would bring the USA directly into any possible conflict in the region. He used the metaphor of the excrement hitting the fan.

The antics of Gary Burd with his array of swords and his initiation ceremony of men into his group of Knights had some distant echoes of Himmler's initiation ceremonies for the SS. One needed to simply swap the bikers leathers, tee shirts, and jeans for Hugo Boss uniforms.

After I watched the programmes I realised that it will be forty years in September since the BBC showed the superb and deeply disturbing Barry Hines drama, Threads against which the earlier 1983 US drama The Day After looked positively Disneyesque. I watched the BBC drama with friends in 1984 and have seen it several times since.. The horror of what it depicted has never left me.

The infantile insanity of those who support such individuals as Hagee and Jeffress and believe that by supporting and encouraging actions that may lead to global conflagration they will bring about the Second Coming and Armageddon is quite staggering and I wondered if those who sat in their marquee in Lebanon, Kansas applauding Mr Burd really believed they would avoid such horrors as depicted in Hines' drama, and Jesus failed to return.

Short answer is no.

I have sampled enough of Hagee (who I have a mixed opinion of) and Jeffress (who I am absolutely not a fan of) to know they are not calling for actions to bring about the Second Coming and Armageddon. They are warning that these events are coming. Having lived through a few years of Christian End Times prophecy and seeing it go zero for probably at least 12, I'm tired of it.

[Diogenes]

Even when I wasn't a Christian I would have said the US should support Israel. The problem are the war hawks who actively want to goad a conflict. They are idiots.

Hagee is an adulterer and a false prophet. I'm not a fan of Jeffries' infusing religion into politics.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Short answer is no.

I have sampled enough of Hagee (who I have a mixed opinion of) and Jeffress (who I am absolutely not a fan of) to know they are not calling for actions to bring about the Second Coming and Armageddon. They are warning that these events are coming. Having lived through a few years of Christian End Times prophecy and seeing it go zero for probably at least 12, I'm tired of it.

The worrying thing is that the activities of these men and their supporters may exacerbate existing tensions in the region. As I understand it, the belief in the Rapture removes its adherents from the worst horrors. Thus many consider whatever happens they will be safely out of the way. The reality is that if some conflagration did occur and that led to nuclear war, those poor deluded individuals would suffer with the rest of the planet.

As for "warning that these events are coming." These "warnings" have been doing the rounds in various guises for some two millennia.

Even when I wasn't a Christian I would have said the US should support Israel. The problem are the war hawks who actively want to goad a conflict. They are idiots.

Hagee is an adulterer and a false prophet. I'm not a fan of Jeffries' infusing religion into politics

How far should the US support Israel? Should it have ever recognised the state of Israel in 1948?

Marshall, Acheson, and Rusk among other experienced advisors to Truman, opposed the recognition of the state of Israel and considered that only direct UN control could avoid bloodshed. With hindsight it would seem they may have had a point.

However, a former VP with little experience who was encouraged, at the time, by an inexperienced political advisor, went ahead.

The problem are the war hawks who actively want to goad a conflict. They are idiots.

That problem is exacerbated by the growing influence of evangelicals who seem to share the views of Hagee and Jeffress in the military and in politics. The first documentary noted that the Christian Right is very influential in Washington albeit sometimes behind the scenes. Frank Schaeffer commented that no Republican can get elected without this "bedrock" of evangelical Republican voters among whom is the belief that support for Israel will bring about the Second Coming more quickly.

It is that belief that is being taken to potentially very dangerous levels and, as the documentaries demonstrate, is having a influence disproportionate to its representation among the US electorate.

What are your respective views on the proselytising of young military recruits by pastors who share these beliefs?

Do you consider it appropriate to have biblical texts on military gun sights?

Was the US wise to establish a military base in Israel after some seventy years of the military vetoing it?

[Thoughtful Monk]

The worrying thing is that the activities of these men and their supporters may exacerbate existing tensions in the region. As I understand it, the belief in the Rapture removes its adherents from the worst horrors. Thus many consider whatever happens they will be safely out of the way. The reality is that if some conflagration did occur and that led to nuclear war, those poor deluded individuals would suffer with the rest of the planet.

As for "warning that these events are coming." These "warnings" have been doing the rounds in various guises for some two millennia.

How far should the US support Israel? Should it have ever recognised the state of Israel in 1948?

Marshall, Acheson, and Rusk among other experienced advisors to Truman, opposed the recognition of the state of Israel and considered that only direct UN control could avoid bloodshed. With hindsight it would seem they may have had a point.

However, a former VP with little experience who was encouraged, at the time, by an inexperienced political advisor, went ahead.

Yes, the US should have recognized Israel when Truman did so. The idea of the state of Israel was not new at the end of WWII. It goes back to at least the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

That problem is exacerbated by the growing influence of evangelicals who seem to share the views of Hagee and Jeffress in the military and in politics. The first documentary noted that the Christian Right is very influential in Washington albeit sometimes behind the scenes. Frank Schaeffer commented that no Republican can get elected without this "bedrock" of evangelical Republican voters among whom is the belief that support for Israel will bring about the Second Coming more quickly.

It is that belief that is being taken to potentially very dangerous levels and, as the documentaries demonstrate, is having a influence disproportionate to its representation among the US electorate.

Is their efforts any more destabilizing than the other participants: Iran, Russia (and China by extension), Hamas, etc. This cartoon from Politico's Cartoon Carousel for May 17 sums it up for me.

What are your respective views on the proselytising of young military recruits by pastors who share these beliefs?

Do you consider it appropriate to have biblical texts on military gun sights?

Was the US wise to establish a military base in Israel after some seventy years of the military vetoing it?

Re proselytizing: your statement assumes that a) young military recruits are stupid and gullible and b) proselytizing by other religious groups is ok. Under my view of freedom of speech and religion, all groups are entitled to proselytize.

[NorrinRadd]

The worrying thing is that the activities of these men and their supporters may exacerbate existing tensions in the region. As I understand it, the belief in the Rapture removes its adherents from the worst horrors. Thus many consider whatever happens they will be safely out of the way. The reality is that if some conflagration did occur and that led to nuclear war, those poor deluded individuals would suffer with the rest of the planet.

As for "warning that these events are coming." These "warnings" have been doing the rounds in various guises for some two millennia.



How far should the US support Israel? Should it have ever recognised the state of Israel in 1948?

I'm fine with it, in spite of the European spelling of "recognized."

Marshall, Acheson, and Rusk among other experienced advisors to Truman, opposed the recognition of the state of Israel and considered that only direct UN control could avoid bloodshed. With hindsight it would seem they may have had a point.

However, a former VP with little experience who was encouraged, at the time, by an inexperienced political advisor, went ahead.

That problem is exacerbated by the growing influence of evangelicals who seem to share the views of Hagee and Jeffress in the military and in politics. The first documentary noted that the Christian Right is very influential in Washington albeit sometimes behind the scenes. Frank Schaeffer commented that no Republican can get elected without this "bedrock" of evangelical Republican voters among whom is the belief that support for Israel will bring about the Second Coming more quickly.

I spent decades among those who hold to "Dispensational" eschatology. If I ever heard the idea that supporting Israel would hasten the Second Coming, it was exceedingly rarely. When we talked about doing anything to hasten the Lord's return, it was Matt. 24:14:

"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

Support for Israel, when given a "proof text," was usually Gen. 12:3 which, heh, also suggests we should support Muslims.

It is that belief that is being taken to potentially very dangerous levels and, as the documentaries demonstrate, is having a influence disproportionate to its representation among the US electorate.

What are your respective views on the proselytising of young military recruits by pastors who share these beliefs?

It is the privilege and duty of Christians, including pastors, to share the Gospel and make converts when the opportunity arises, and indeed to actively be alert for such opportunities. I'd prefer they not focus on eschatology, but I would not forbid it.

Do you consider it appropriate to have biblical texts on military gun sights?

How did the texts get placed there? I'd prefer the gun sights not be issued by the military with the texts included, but I don't think I'd forbid the soldiers from personalizing them.

Was the US wise to establish a military base in Israel after some seventy years of the military vetoing it?

We have bases in too many places, but if we're going to do that in general, I'm fine with one in Israel.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm fine with it, in spite of the European spelling of "recognized."

Does that support go unchecked whatever Israel does?

I spent decades among those who hold to "Dispensational" eschatology. If I ever heard the idea that supporting Israel would hasten the Second Coming, it was exceedingly rarely. When we talked about doing anything to hasten the Lord's return, it was Matt. 24:14:

The documentaries include the language of Hagee and Jeffress as well as the antics of Gary Burd and his biker knights.

It is the privilege and duty of Christians, including pastors, to share the Gospel and make converts when the opportunity arises, and indeed to actively be alert for such opportunities. I'd prefer they not focus on eschatology, but I would not forbid it.

Should pastors with one particular viewpoint be more readily appointed? Protestantism is, to use a phrase, a broad church.

How did the texts get placed there? I'd prefer the gun sights not be issued by the military with the texts included, but I don't think I'd forbid the soldiers from personalizing them.

According to various sites/articles the firm Trijicon stamps these texts on their products which are used by, among others, the US military and the products were certainly being used in operations in Afghanistan.

I cannot ascertain if the policy has since ceased but as Mike Weinstein, the president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and another interviewee in the documentaries, noted "I don't have to wonder for a nanosecond how the American public would react if citations from the Qur'an were being inscribed onto these U.S. armed forces gun sights instead of New Testament citations."

As has likewise been observed, US troops operating in Muslim regions using equipment with such texts runs a severe risk providing their opponents with a propaganda tool.

In his documentary interviews Mr Weinstein also discussed the sheer number of military personnel he has as clients and 95% of whom are Christians but are at risk of being "dehumanised and marginalised for not being Christian enough"

The documentaries briefly explored the fascinating topics of language and representations of Jesus as a "stud" and "warrior" with emphasis on his masculinity and aggression. Weinsten referred to some "three dozen para-Church organisations" that are involved in what he termed "weaponised Christianity" and referred to the retired general William "Jerry" Boykin who apparently "made it clear that when Jesus comes back he will be carrying an AR 15".

This militant masculinity is very appealing to particular types of, usually white, evangelical Christians where Jesus is imagined as as a Sylvester Stallone/Chuck Norris character complete with the pecs, the six pack, and a powerful firearm engaged in fighting the forces of evil.

We have bases in too many places, but if we're going to do that in general, I'm fine with one in Israel.

As Wilkerson noted any US base in Israel had been vetoed by the military since 1948, and as he also remarked if that base was hit by Hezbollah, the - his words - ""***t would hit the fan" and the USA would be directly involved in a potential ME war.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes, the US should have recognized Israel when Truman did so. The idea of the state of Israel was not new at the end of WWII. It goes back to at least the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

That brief letter did envisage a sovereign state.

Re proselytizing: your statement assumes that a) young military recruits are stupid and gullible and b) proselytizing by other religious groups is ok. Under my view of freedom of speech and religion, all groups are entitled to proselytize.

I ask the same question I put to NorrinRadd

Should pastors with one particular viewpoint be more readily appointed? Protestantism is, to use a phrase, a broad church.

I also refer you to the remarks by Mike Weinstein about many of his military clients:

95% of whom are Christians but are at risk of being "dehumanised and marginalised for not being Christian enough"

As well as his comment from general "Jerry" Boykin and the appeal of militant masculinity:

"made it clear that when Jesus comes back he will be carrying an AR 15". This militant masculinity is very appealing to particular types of, usually white, evangelical Christians where Jesus is imagined as as a Sylvester Stallone/Chuck Norris character complete with the pecs, the six pack, and a powerful firearm engaged in fighting the forces of evil.

[Diogenes]

The worrying thing is that the activities of these men and their supporters may exacerbate existing tensions in the region. As I understand it, the belief in the Rapture removes its adherents from the worst horrors. Thus many consider whatever happens they will be safely out of the way. The reality is that if some conflagration did occur and that led to nuclear war, those poor deluded individuals would suffer with the rest of the planet.

I would agree that there's an element of intentional acceleration what they perceive as end time events.

How far should the US support Israel? Should it have ever recognised the state of Israel in 1948?

As I have been since prior to my conversion, I support a one-state solution. Israel is reformable. Arab regional and ethno-nationalists who call for genocide and support terrorists are not.

Marshall, Acheson, and Rusk among other experienced advisors to Truman, opposed the recognition of the state of Israel and considered that only direct UN control could avoid bloodshed. With hindsight it would seem they may have had a point.

UN peacekeeping forces are abysmal. The Arabs from the beginning have rejected the presence of Jews.

However, a former VP with little experience who was encouraged, at the time, by an inexperienced political advisor, went ahead.

Truman had more experience than Obama.

That problem is exacerbated by the growing influence of evangelicals who seem to share the views of Hagee and Jeffress in the military and in politics. The first documentary noted that the Christian Right is very influential in Washington albeit sometimes behind the scenes. Frank Schaeffer commented that no Republican can get elected without this "bedrock" of evangelical Republican voters among whom is the belief that support for Israel will bring about the Second Coming more quickly.

It is that belief that is being taken to potentially very dangerous levels and, as the documentaries demonstrate, is having an influence disproportionate to its representation among the US electorate.

As I said, I'm no fan of the two men.

What are your respective views on the proselytising of young military recruits by pastors who share these beliefs?

Freedom of religion is a thing.

Do you consider it appropriate to have biblical texts on military gun sights?

Depends if the items can be purchased at least at cost to do so. Personally, no, but I also don't consider activist slogans on sports equipment as "appropriate". Freedom of speech is an all or nothing issue. If you allow one speech, you have to allow all speech within that context.

You seem to be referring to the Trijicon controversy without naming it. In that case, it's not appropriate.

Of course, the US govt has no issue with pride flags and other pseudo-religious proselytizing of Leftist activism.

Was the US wise to establish a military base in Israel after some seventy years of the military vetoing it?

Depends on how other partners are likely to pivot to China. So, as you like to imply, it's complicated.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That brief letter did not envisage a sovereign state.


I ask the same question I put to NorrinRadd

Should pastors with one particular viewpoint be more readily appointed? Protestantism is, to use a phrase, a broad church.

I also refer you to the remarks by Mike Weinstein about many of his military clients:

95% of whom are Christians but are at risk of being "dehumanised and marginalised for not being Christian enough"

As well as his comment from general "Jerry" Boykin and the appeal of militant masculinity:

"made it clear that when Jesus comes back he will be carrying an AR 15". This militant masculinity is very appealing to particular types of, usually white, evangelical Christians where Jesus is imagined as as a Sylvester Stallone/Chuck Norris character complete with the pecs, the six pack, and a powerful firearm engaged in fighting the forces of evil.

Corrected for omission of the adverb!