Talk:Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom

Untitled

This is very basic and can be extended greatly so that it is NOT an attack page but a proper education page on the subject. So much present day information on people and organisations can be gotten from Dispatches: In God's Name - Channel 4 and Balfour to Blair - Al Jazeera.

This article will seek to address to what extent does Christian Zionism play a role in British politics today. How entangled is the Israel Lobby in the UK, inside and out of government, with fundamentalist Christian Zionism. To what degree are Britain’s politicians, especially those involved with Middle Eastern foreign policy, entwined with this ideology. On that note, to what degree are Christian Zionist lobbyists towards the government operating. And, is it of such a relationship, with the politicians, the lobby and this ideology, that it is helping to drive British foreign policy in the Middle East towards the brink of a destruction in order to fulfil biblical prophesy. (See references for British literature)

Ratings

All project tags & ratings were added by the creator of the article. You are not supposed to self-assess, Arthur. I have reset all to start/low & frankly some project tags could go completely. The article is riddled with POV statements & style/layout issues, which I will leave to others. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, these tags were copied and edited from another article so the rating was from that. Apologies. I want it less POV and any help would be great.

Article neutrality

I would very much like this article to be as neutral as possible. If anyone can quote sources to dispute this and visa versa then this would be very welcomed. I think it can be a very good article but needs alot of work. AWT (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, my advice to you about complying with NPOV is - first of all let me say that it WAS a very good idea for you to invite people in different projects to attend to this article, you are right that the more people are involved in buidling up an article, the better, that was a good idea - but if you personally want some advice about making the article more NPOV: instead of asking people for cources that refute what you have written, try to stop thinking of what you wrote as an argument. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to "prove" anything. Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to "prove" anything. They are meant to be dispassionate accounts of specific topics, providing an account of all notable views of that topic. If there are controversies surrounding the topic, it provides a dispassionate account of the controversy. If a notable view of the topic is controversial, it provides a dispassionate account of the controversy and the notable views of the controversy. If this does not make sense to you, read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV carefully, and I think that you will see tht the biggest problem with this article is that at the moment it reads as if you are trying to prove something or make some kind of argument. If you are not sure what I mean also read WP:SOAP. If you were simply to rewrite this following my suggestions, so it is not about proving anything or trying to change people's minds about anything, you would go far towards resolving people's objections. Also, reflect on the difference between a newspaper (or a TV documentary) and an encyclopedia. Both are meant to inform and thus to educate. But newspapers and TV documentaries often do this through "exposes" - reporting on something of political urgency that citizens need to know. Encyclopedias do not inform and educate this way. Encyclopedias instead educate people about established bodies of knowledge. This is why we generally prefer to use secondary rather than primary sources. Something, including views about that thing, need to be fairly well established (whether uncontroversial or controersial) before they are worth putting in an encyclopedia. We have articles on some very controversial topics - for example, Race and Jesus that really concentrate on well-established (even if conflicting) views in a dispassionate way. look at those articles and I think you will see that they are written solely to inform people as to what a range of notable views are, not to try to convince people of anything. Does this make sense? Please read the policies I mention carefully, and look at the articles I mention, and I think you will see that this article as it currently stands sufers more than anything else from an unencyclopedic style. Fixing the style is something you can do now that would help a lot.

If you do not believe you can write about this topic dispassionately ... well, there is a longstanding principle here at Wikipedia that the best way to write an article is to write about something you do not care about. That will nesure that you don't put your personal feelings, convictions, and biases into an article. But I believe it is possible for a person to write about something they care about without putting their personal feelings, convictions, and biases into an article. But it takes work, and that starts with really studying WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

The main thing is, you should not be looking for other editors to disprove you, and you should not be trying to change anyone's mind either. Wikipedia is simply not about editors arguing over what we believe in or think is important. I hope this helps. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, many thanks for your comments, they are greatly appreciated and I do understand what you mean and fully agree. Please note, I honestly didn't intend to be bias although I can see that it may be but I also, when inviting others for information, didn't mean it as a challenge or to prove me wrong. Maybe it was my wording and the way I wrote it but I didn't mean it like that, I meant it solely to help the article and nothing else. I have read what you have written and the links you have provided and will take this on board with my further edits. Again, thank you, and I genuinly mean it. AWT (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome!! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

History and Present Day

To understand Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom I would highly recommend the following: Two documentaries to watch regarding the history and modern day manifestation of Classical Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom as oppossed to Dispensationalist Christian Zionism in the United States are Balfour to Blair by Al Jazeera and The Forsaken Promise by Film Trust. They look at the same history from the past to the present from two different perspectives. Also, a fundamental read that is a must to understand Classical Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom is Defending Christian Zionism by David Pawson. This gives a history and defence of the belief. The prequel to The Forsaken Promise is The Destiny of Britain and is also recommended viewing. AWT (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why you've restricted this discussion to just the last 8 years, or how you can hope to produce an encyclopaedic article on it. There isn't likely to be a "current state of Christian Zionism". It's bound to be in a permanent state of flux developing from what's gone before, with input from other movements, and perhaps driven by particular enthusiasts. Listing the organizations won't help the readers understand which organisations are historic (with established views, international links and so forth) and which are recent groups, perhaps people who met up on Facebook. (Also, readers need to know that, historically, some of the people in this field are thought to have been antisemitic - I can't tell if modern followers fight this tendency or not).

By all means carry on improving the article as it is, but in the end, the community may think it's only an orphaned part of the main Christian Zionism article. Or worse, a WP:FORK of that article. Even if the main article grows too large to be manageable, this topic may only be able to justify a sub-page from a main article. (Please excuse me for taking the liberty of adding your sig, along with the date and time, to your TalkPage entries - it will happen automatically if you sign your entries here with 4 tildes). PR^talk 14:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for this article to be seperate from Christian Zionism. Also you may want ot examine the evangelist and zionist credentials of Lloyd George and Balfour etc. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a coatrack article to me, having nothing significant to say about any movement involved - which in any case, would only be very recent. The fact that there have been many Christian Zionists in the UK (at least some of them antisemitic - not sure about Lloyd George and Balfour) doesn't mean that there is a Christian Zionist movement. This article tends to convince me there isn't such a movement. Have you any experience of an AfD? PR^talk 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete?

The first sentence states, "The role of Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom in the 21st century, as opposed to the history of the beginning of the movement in Britain under Christian Zionism and Dispensationalism, is little known outside of the movement itself." If this is true, it seems to me that the article does not meet our notability guidelines and may merit a deletion, even a speedy deletion. Can someone check whether this merits a speedy deletion? if no admin will delete it, perhaps someone would nominate it for deletion? Articles should be on notable topics, no? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is pretty bad, but there is a nugget of accurate info in it which could be preserved. As I've stated at Christian Zionism and Israel lobby in the United Kingdom this kind of vague, WP:POV and WP:OR information does not belong in Wikipedia. Only reliably sourced NPOV info does. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

CCJ

There's nothing Zionist on the Council of Christians & Jews website. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 15:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd respectfully beg to differ. Look at http://www.ccj.org.uk/Israel.pdf - I would say it's mildly zionist. CCJ has supported the state of Israel whilst deploring violence on both sides. I won't revert your edit but would like to hear your comments. Sidefall (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Early roots

I have added some referenced historical context for UK Restorationism, which merges into Christian Zionism. Anita Shapira is not alone in arguing that Evangelical theology played a large role in reigniting Jewish national aspirations.

Cpsoper (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sokolow

Sokolow's monumental and meticulous history is mainly focused on the UK, and the role of Zionism (Jewish as well as Christian) is carefully documented there. I have added a salient quote, referenced it and added two external links. He was of course an active advocate of Zionism, so his views need weighing in this light. Cpsoper (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080703165644/http://www.cc-vw.org/articles/defendingchristianzionism.htm to http://www.cc-vw.org/articles/defendingchristianzionism.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329110238/http://www.cc-vw.org/audio/pawsondebate.mp3 to http://www.cc-vw.org/audio/pawsondebate.mp3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081118012013/http://www.sabeel.org.au/challengingchristianzionism.html to http://www.sabeel.org.au/challengingchristianzionism.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427144150/http://www.cc-vw.org/articles/zionism.html to http://www.cc-vw.org/articles/zionism.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Edit

On the links to the Wesley brothers I believe it is incorrect to attribute Zionist leanings to Charles or John Wesley. The links provided to a "Zionist Hymn" do not prove they were Zionist. There are many sources available that show both held some bias against Jews. I believe it would be more correct to say that they held restorationist views which are very different from Zionism. Just a suggested edit to be as accurate as possible on their views and also to not attribute to them something they did not believe, especially given that some of their comments towards Jews are not very kind.

Here is an example:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/founder-of-methodism-the-jew-is-a-worm-uaa57cj6

Another can be found here:

https://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/784513/27385906/1482318882317/background-mayers.pdf?token=8H90dl5abkmSoGCYjsbSFsX90bM%3D ThrowbackChristianity (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no contradiction between being antisemitic and being Zionist. Zero^talk 04:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There is if the supporting evidence and references are not in line with said person's writings and theology. This post is not citing sources from Wesley himself, or from any Wesley Scholar. Such references can be seen as biased. From sources that read and cite his works, it is eveident, he was either amillenial or post millenial, with 100 percent certain partial preterist views as he wrote that the prophecies that Zionist apply to the end times had already happened in 70 AD. See his notes on the NT in Matthew 24 and 25 for example. Also see his notes on Genesis 17, Isaiah chapters 11, 12, 13 and 14, Ezekiel 47, Jeremiah 3 and Romans 11. He was a restorationist - meaning he believed Jews would mass convert at some point in time to Christianity and pagans, muslims, and Christians would see this conversion, no matter how big or small in number the conversion would be. He never once stated any stance on a literal return to the land. In his notes on Genesis, Exodus and others he clearly says the land was a type and the covenant was meant to be spiritual. In his notes on the second coming of Christ, Jesus returns, judges the Earth and that is all. In his book, Modern Premillennialism and the Christian Hope By Harris Franklin Rall, he points out that Wesley never mentioned any doctrine that would support Premillenialism, which is tied often to Zionism. Wesley's own sermons, The Great Assize, The Way of the Kingdom, The signs of the times, are only a few of many others where he also mentions his stance on the end times, and a restoration of the Jews to belief only. No mention of a land restortaion. I believe if the credibility of Wikipedia is to be kept in mind, as well as we real desire to ensure that information is correct, then this sound be taken into consideration. If we are only trying to hardball for one side, that may be biased in our favor, then so be it. ThrowbackChristianity (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)