Elon Musk, antisemitism, and ignoring the wisdom of Romans 14:22 "Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves."

 

Romans 14:22  So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves.

After buying Twitter, the world's richest man, Elon Musk, has numerous times "condemned himself" by approving of racist and antisemitic statements and conspiracy theories.  While Musk has insisted that, "nothing could be further from the truth," much of the world isn't buying it, not when it keeps happening, not when he seems to have so little interest in repairing the damage he is causing.

Elon Musk addresses claims of antisemitism: ‘Nothing could be further from the truth’ - by Sarah Fortinsky, 11/19/23, The Hill

The latest example was Elon Musk's reply, "You have said the actual truth" in response to this tweet:

I’m deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don’t exactly like them too much. - The tweet on X (formerly Twitter) to which Musk replied.

This of course comes in the context of the horrific mass murders in Israel on October 7th, and is a repetition of the deeply antisemitic conspiracy theory that inspired the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter and the Charlottesville wanna-be Nazis who shouted, "Jews will not replace us" known as the Great Replacement Theory.  

{Here is a post I wrote in the wake of the Pittsburgh shooting that examined the support of the Great Replacement Theory by Tucker Carlson: Another Mass Murder inspired by the Evil of the "Great Replacement" theory}

The point is, by now, anyone who has an opinion worth hearing on the subject of immigration, Jews, and racism is aware of how dangerous the White Supremacist's conspiracy that Jews are financing global migration to eradicate white people really is.  And yet, Elon Musk felt the need to lend his support to this idea and share that "opinion" will his 100 million + followers.

Whatever the outcome is down the road for Elon Musk, X (Twitter), and the rising tide of antisemitism that we must once again confront, there is a profound lesson for all of us to be learned from watching Musk try to defend himself against his own words: If you support evil, don't be surprised when people associate you with evil.

If you share, promote, and like antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories, the world is going to conclude that you yourself are an antisemite.  That's not unfair, it isn't unwarranted, it is an application of Jesus' wisdom, 

Luke 6:45  A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

The rise in antisemitism around the globe is accelerating, we must not ignore it as our ancestors did 100 years ago.

100 years ago antisemitism was commonplace in Europe, America, and many other parts of the world.  It was also nothing new, having been present and poisoning the heart and soul of Christendom since at least the first mass violence against Jews by Christians during the run-up to the Crusades.  It was a spiritual cancer growing there within the Church that successive generations failed to eradicate.  Spasms of violence, mass confiscations of property, and expulsions from various kingdoms and nations had sporadically occurred, but few could envision that the generation growing up in the gruesome shadow of WWI, who would soon begin enduring the Great Depression, would also be the generation to witness history's greatest effort at ethnic genocide.  When Hitler rose to power in Germany the warning signs began to sound, but they were not heeded, not by enough people and not by people who could have done something about it, until it was far too late.  Jewish refugees were not welcome anywhere, including in America.  {A well documented example: VOYAGE OF THE ST. LOUIS - The Holocaust Encyclopedia} They may have proven themselves to be the Greatest Generation in many ways, but in their response to antisemitism, they soundly and profoundly failed.  As the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed to the world in the rubble of WWII, the rallying cry was, "Never Again!"  Shame at having done too little too late had broken the fever of antisemitism, seemingly, it was hoped.

I fear that we're living in the generation that will begin to answer the question of whether or not "Never Again!" can last more than 100 years before it expires.  

ADL Records Dramatic Increase in U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Following Oct. 7 Hamas Massacre

Russia Airport Mob Hunting Jewish Passengers—What We Know Oct 30, 2023

As I have written and said many times in the past, the failure of the Church to not only protect the Jews of Europe and America from violence and discrimination, but also the failure to fully purge that evil from the hearts and minds of those who claim to follow Jesus (himself purposefully and proudly Jewish), is the greatest failure in Church history.  It is our darkest stain and our greatest shame.

God demands more of us, our generation will have the opportunity to demonstrate through word and deed that we have learned from our ancestors mistakes.

** It is entirely possible, and at times even morally responsible, to be critical of the policies of the nation-state of Israel AND at the same time condemn and oppose antisemitism in all of its forms.  Israel should be no more subject to a "Love it or leave it" mantra than America.  We can love America and be critical of her failure just as we can support Jews wherever they may live without having to agree 100% with what the nation of Israel does.  However, the insidious nature of antisemitism compels us to speak with measured wisdom if we feel we must be critical of the nation of Israel, so that criticism of governmental policies and actions does not give encouragement to the racists who are seeking to harm and kill Jews.

It is also entirely possible to condemn terrorism in all of its forms, even to agree that a government is justified in taking military action against terrorists, and at the same time feel compassion and pity for the innocent civilians that are left homeless, wounded, and killed in the process.**

Pray for the Peace of Israel, pray for the Holy Land, pray for the Jews and pray for the Palestinians. 

Below are links to my previous posts on the subject of antisemitism:

Scripture Abuse: 2 Chronicles 7:14, idolatry, nationalism, and antisemitism

Another Mass Murder inspired by the Evil of the "Great Replacement" theory

QAnon's kidnapping and “adrenochroming of children” is just repackaging the medieval antisemitic Blood Libel, the whole movement must be utterly rejected.

I'm not willing to ignore Antisemitism on Christmas Eve (or ever).

Sermon Video: The LORD dwells in Zion - Joel 3

Christian Antisemitism: An utterly absurd oxymoron

Rethinking the Five Solae - by Jacob Fronczak, First Fruits of Zion's failed attempt to label Protestantism as inherently anti-Semitic

 

Before I begin, an important reminder: The First Fruits of Zion (and the larger Hebrew Roots Movement) is NOT a part of Messianic Judaism, the book discussed below claims to speak on behalf of that perspective, but the author and the organization he represents do NOT belong to it {"FFOZ does not represent the messianic Jewish movement", a quotation from an email I received from a Messianic Jewish Rabbi serving in leadership with the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues (IAMCS) He also wrote, "Messianic Jewish leaders universally reject One Law theology. FFOZ is not a messianic Jewish organization or ministry."}

One of the primary defenses of those leading and participating in Torah Clubs here in Venango County has been, "it's just a Bible study."  As pastors, when attempting to do our duty before God of protecting the flock from dangerous theologies and attempts to divide our congregations and Christian community, it is important that we don't use hyperbole by claiming that bad ideas are heretical ones, or that things that we don't personally agree with are actually affronts to God.  That sort of foolishness happens all too often, and people are rightly wary when a religious leader warns those in his/her charge to completely avoid an idea, organization, or movement.  If you're familiar with my blog, you know how often I've warned against the all too common habit in America today of labeling those on the other side of an issue as evil or claiming their ideas would destroy the nation or church.  With that perspective in mind, and the, "Why are you calling a Bible study unorthodox?" question in firm view, continue reading.

When it comes to the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs), the evidence continues to mount that the warning from the Franklin Christian Ministerium was both warranted and on target {The Franklin Christian Miniserium's warning against the Torah Clubs and the First Fruits of Zion}.  After learning about this book (I just came across it yesterday), the case has only grown that much stronger.

Should Christians really participate in a Bible study designed and created by an organization that believes that each of the churches that you belong to are founded on inherently anti-Semitic beliefs?  If FFOZ doesn't actually believe such a loaded charge, and few accusations could be as damning if they were proved to be true, why would they publish a book built upon that premise?

The following quotations and commentary from Jacob Fronczak's book are pulled from the review of it by Rich Robinson as published in the journal Mishkan in 2021, you can read the full review here: Book Review of Fronczak, Why Messianic Judaism is Incompatible with the Five Foundations of Protestantism - by Rich Robinson {The quotations from Fronczak's book will appear in italics, the commentary from Robinson in bold, and my comments on both in ordinary text following them.}

In the preface to Rethinking the Five Solae, author Jacob Fronczak proffers the thesis that the five solae (or as more often anglicized, solas) of the Reformation are “themselves the root of Protestant anti-Semitism” (p. 2) and that “as they are normally understood, are designed to exclude Jews as much as Catholics from any definition of true and biblical religion” (ibid). These are serious charges, and so the book’s aim is “to re-examine the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective” (p. 3). Fronczak is himself non-Jewish, though moving in Messianic Jewish circles.

My comment: Is that not a serious charge!  That the very foundations of Protestant thought are the cause of Protestant anti-Semitism!  Let me be clear, the Church as a whole, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike, has a horrific and evil history of anti-Semitism, I will not minimize nor excuse an ounce of it, and have on numerous occasions called out and denounced its modern manifestations.  Each and every cause of Christian anti-Semitism should be examined and reckoned with.  But to say that the theology of the five solas are themselves the cause of the sinful anti-Semitism in Protestant history is to label the entire movement's premise as evil.  Again, hard to say that the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) are just organizing and leading Bible studies meant to enhance the Church, when this is what they are willing to publish about Protestantism.

For those who need a refresher on the Five Solas (or Solae), here they are: sola scriptura (according to Scripture alone), sola fide (by faith alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), solus Christus (by Christ alone), and soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone).

So, what powerful evidence of inherent anti-Semitism does Fronczak follow-up his explosive claim with?

Unfortunately, what the author really ends up addressing is misunderstandings, or misuses, of the solas rather than the way they are understood and utilized by responsible interpreters.

My comment: If all you have are examples of the ideas of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the rest being twisted and used in ways they themselves would have rejected, it becomes rather ludicrous to say that their ideas are the problem.

"I aim to show here that when a proponent of sola scriptura studies the Bible, he is relying on something other than the inspired Word of God, whether he realizes it or not. Furthermore, I seek to show that those who malign the investigation and examination of traditional Jewish literature to illuminate the text of the Scripture are themselves ignorant of their own reliance on tradition and the usefulness of extra-biblical literature." (p. 8) In these examples I find the author to be tilting at windmills. Who denies that we should look to extra-biblical sources (Jewish, Greco-Roman, ancient Near Eastern) to arrive at an understanding of Scripture? Sola scriptura teaches that the Scripture is the final, not the only, authority.  And who are these people who “malign” using Jewish sources? They are not scholars, and I’m not sure that I know of any pastors or lay people who would argue that way.

My comment: Tilting at windmills (nice literary reference there), indeed.  It is a rare Protestant who thinks that a high view of the authority of Scripture negates the role of scholarship, archeology, history, and a host of other disciplines that help the Church fully understand what God was trying to say to his people when the Word was given to its original audience, and how that truth can in turn be applied in our world.  Each an every week I lead two Bible studies where we go verse by verse through the Word of God.  Those who have attended (and you can listen to the audio of them here: Bible Study Podcasts) will tell you that we spend an awful lot of time talking about historical context, cultural settings, textual and translational issues, and more, all in the pursuit of that very Protestant belief in sola scriptura.  Like Rich Robinson, I am at a loss as to who Fronczak is thinking of when he claims that Protestants don't utilize or malign extra-biblical Jewish sources as potential insights into the text of Scripture.

Furthermore, Fronczak repeatedly insists that because the solas distinguished Protestantism from Catholicism, they were designed to draw circles and exclude others. Defining boundaries, however, is a part of life. If you are some things, then you are also not other things. This is just a statement of fact. It has precious little to do with denigrating Judaism or Catholicism or anything else.

My comment: From 1517 onward, it was pretty important to offer explanations of why Lutheranism differed with Catholicism, why the Reformed differed from Lutheranism and Catholicism, and for fun, why the Anabaptists disagreed with them all.  Can you differentiate your belief system and or group from similar ones with malice?  Absolutely, but that isn't inherent in the process, to claim that the five solae do this toward both Catholics and Jews could equally be said (and equally foolishly) of every effort that any movement in Church history has made to define itself.

In his conclusion, the author writes that, “In considering the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective, we have at times questioned their usefulness—at least as they seem to be understood by today’s evangelical Protestants” (p. 131). This however, is a far cry from showing that they are at the root of anti-Semitism (they aren’t) and far from showing that as properly understood, as opposed to popularly (mis)understood, they are not useful (they are).

My comment: Again, Fronczak uses a 'we' there that doesn't belong.  He is himself a non-Jew, the organization he represents, and the movement that it belongs to, have been categorically rejected by the largest Messianic Jewish organizations.  That they think they have become Jews, spiritually or otherwise, by following this theological path, is part of the reason why the Franklin Christian Ministerium has chosen to oppose them.

Robinson's review concludes that Fronczak has failed, entirely, to demonstrate at all his explosive premise.  

"It is contradictory to claim to live a Jewish life in Messiah and at the same time deprecate Jewish tradition (sola scriptura), minimize the importance of good works (sola fide), claim that traditional Judaism is legalistic (sola gratia), distance oneself from organizational Messianic Judaism (solus Christus), and refrain from giving honor to those who have gone before one, those on whose shoulders we all stand (soli Deo gloria)." (p. 134) This is simply put, a raw caricature of what the solas stand for.

My comment: To destroy a strawman is not that difficult, but it doesn't help anyone, and it proves nothing.  It is hardly worth explaining why each of Fronczak's charges against each sola is nonsense, it should be obvious to anyone who has studied Protestant theology.  In brief only, then: (1) Sola scriptura puts tradition in a secondary place, it does not depreciate it or ignore it. (2) Sola fide is a summation of the NT's emphasis on faith, neither Paul nor any other NT author diminishes the need for confirming good works to follow it (see for example: Ephesians 2:8-10, where vs. 8-9 declare the supremacy of faith and grace, AND vs. 10 proclaims that God has good works set aside for each of us to do). (3) The theology of sola gratia does not call the Law of Moses legalistic in the way that Fronczak is using the word, but would indeed take issues with the same abuses of 2nd Temple Judaism that Jesus repeatedly crushed the Pharisees for upholding. (4) Solus Christus in no way is aimed at organizational Messianic Judaism, how could it be?  For those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Christ alone makes all the sense in the world. (5) Lastly, Soli Deo Gloria directs all worship and honor to God, as it should be, it doesn't dishonor our ancestors in the faith.  The author of Hebrews was more than capable of lauding the heroes of the faith who had gone before him without taking an ounce of God's ultimate glory, displayed in even the triumphs of those men and women, away from God.

When you set out to prove that the heart of Protestantism is inherently anti-Semitic, but only end up trashing Straw Men that we don't even believe, why would an organization publish and promote such a baseless attack?  

In denigrating the five solas, he both fails to understand them and fails to allow Protestants to speak for themselves as to their meaning...I simply fail to grasp his rationale for choosing the solas as his whipping boy.

For the record, I am a Messianic Jew; I’ve been part of both messianic congregations and mainstream churches. I have studied at a Reformed seminary, I learned my basic New Testament as a young believer from a Catholic priest, and I have had many conversations at Hillel in college and over the years during my studies of Judaism and Jewish literature. I have no Protestant grist in my mill to grind about the solas. 

My comment: Why do I see danger signs blaring loudly when I read material published by the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs)?  If you we a pastor, and learned about a 'Bible study group' from an organization that believes these things about the Church, wouldn't you be?  

Scripture Abuse: 2 Chronicles 7:14, idolatry, nationalism, and antisemitism

Note: I know a number of committed Christians, people whom I love and respect, who have been known to use 2 Chronicles 7:14 as a promise to America.  While I feel that a proper grammatical/contextual/historical interpretation of this passage precludes such an interpretation and application (see below), I am not questioning their faith, only offering them a warning about the danger of misplaced/misunderstood patriotism.

I saw this image shared on Facebook this week.  As someone who has previously highlighted various verses in my Bible, I don't take issue with the desire to make it easier to find a passage in the future, or to remember what one thought about a passage with a note in the margin.  This is not that.  To draw an American Flag on top of the words of Scripture raises serious questions, to put it here at 2 Chronicles 7:14 points us in the direction of why someone might do this.

2 Chronicles 7:14  New International Version

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

Why is this interpretation/application of 2 Chronicles 7:14 both erroneous and dangerous?

1. It ignores the context

1 & 2 Chronicles are, as the name suggest, a chronicle of the of the Kingdom of Israel (after the schism, Judah), from the reign of King Saul to the Exile to Babylon.  It was written after the Exile as a history for the people who had returned to the Promised Land, offering them understanding as to why things had happened in their past, and hope for the future.  The specific context of 7:14 is that the LORD is speaking to King Solomon after the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem.  In that conversation, God promises to Solomon that when the Israelites fail to obey the Covenant, there will be a chance for them to return to God through repentance.  Why?  Because God has promised them in his Covenant both blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, and God is faithful to his word, if they repent he will heal them.

2 Chronicles 7:14 is a promise from God to Israel.  It is a promise derived from, and inherently connected to, the Covenant that began with Abraham and was expounded further upon to Moses, David, and now Solomon.  It was not a promise for any surrounding tribe or nation at that time, nor any other nation later in history.  In fact, as Genesis unfolds Abraham learns that Isaac, and Isaac alone, is the Child of Promise.  In the next generation, God specifically chooses Jacob over Esau, once against showing that it is God's sovereign will that matters.

Romans 9:10-15  New International Version

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

2. It ignores the grammar

America is not 'my people', they are not 'called by my name'.  I know that millions of Christians believe that we are, but there is no legitimate way that how these terms are used by God when he spoke to Solomon could be stretched to now include the United States.  Why?  The descendants of Abraham were specifically called by God, set apart by God, and made into a tribe and nation by God.  They were 'my people' in every possible way.  Where is the parallel to America?  At what point, and in what way, were the people who inhabit this land called by God to be here?  The Israelites bore the name of God, wherever they went they represented God to the world around them, their distinctive practices in the Law of Moses setting them apart.  Where is the parallel to America?  In what way, historically or in the present, are the American people distinctive culturally in a way that marks us out as God's people?  When considering American distinctives, are ANY of them marks of a people who belong to God?

Numbers 6:27  New International Version

“So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.”

In addition, 'their land' is a reference to the Promised Land.  It can be no other land in the context of God's conversation with Solomon.  It didn't mean any other geographic place on earth.  To say that God's promise also applies to England, Spain, Australia, South Korea, or America is to ignore what the text originally intended and decide, on our own, that it can be extended globally.  

For a longer treatment of this issue steeped in scriptural analysis see: The Myth of a Christian Nation - by Gregory Boyd: a summary and response

3. It replaces the Church with America in the hearts and minds of Christians

The promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14 is an Old Covenant promise, not a New Covenant promise.  That alone should give us pause as to why it would be applied by Christians to their own circumstances.  Beyond that, the promise is made to God's people, not to a nation state.  When American Christians (or Christians in any other nation) utilize this verse to talk about their country, they're blurring the line of belonging between the Kingdom of God / Family of God to which they belong as followers of Jesus Christ, and the Kingdom of this World to which they belong as earthly citizens.  

Even if the promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14 were applicable to the New Covenant people, it would apply to the Church not any nation.  Why?  When God instituted the New Covenant through the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost he did so with peoples called out from every tribe, language, and nation.  The wonder at Pentecost of hearing the Gospel in their own languages by Jerusalem's diverse pilgrim crowd illustrated this new emphasis.  

Galatians 3:26-28  New International Version

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Revelation 7:9  New International Version

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

It is unfortunate that after the favor placed upon Christianity by Constantine that the idea of Christendom developed.  Many of the evils that Christians were involved in from that point on involved protecting Christendom, a 'Christian nation' or collection of Christian nations, from worldly threats.  Christendom as a concept opened up Christians to the embrace of the idea of winning converts with the sword, of utilizing evil 'that good may result' because of supposed political necessity, of conquering 'in Jesus' name' and shouting 'God wills it!' as they slaughtered infidels.

Whether one loves America or not, America is NOT the Church.  It never was, it cannot be.  We blur the lines of allegiance, obligations, and fidelity at our peril.

4. It raises America in our hearts and minds toward a place of idolatry. 

I love this country, and count it a great blessing to have been born in this land and have its citizenship, but that blessing cannot compare to having been called by the Spirit of God to become of follower of Jesus Christ, joining the Family of God and becoming a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven.  In every way, our faith requires that our allegiance to God come first.  If my nation, tribe, community, family choose to abandon God, sin against God, or ignore his call to live righteously in this world, I must choose what faith require over those bonds.  Have Christians done this consistently and properly throughout history?  Sadly no.  They have too often thought of themselves as Dutchmen, Englishmen, Russians, or Americans first, and only secondarily as Christians.  This is, to not mince words, idolatry.  Whenever devotion to any other unit (family, community, tribe, nation) rises in importance and obligation above the total commitment to the Cross and the Gospel that God demands of those whom he has redeemed, it is sinful idolatry.  We may not want to hear this, but we must.

I hope that America has a long and glorious future, but I have no idea if this will be.  God has made no such promises to this nation or any other outside of ancient Israel.  I have no idea if America will be a force for good in our world, if it will embrace its potential and reject its flaws.  I do know, with certainty, that the Church will endure until the Day of Judgment.  I do know that God's Spirit will continue to work in its people, globally, because he has indeed promised that he will do so, that his Church will triumph and bring glory to his name.  As flawed as it can be, and as often as its people have failed to live up to their calling, the Church's future is secure.

Matthew 16:18New International Version

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

5. Reading America into Old Covenant texts is a form of antisemitism.

Antisemitism is the darkest stain on the dress of the Bride of Christ.  That it is an inexcusable evil goes without saying.  There is a long standing tendency for Christians to disregard the Covenantal promises made by God to Abraham's descendants and to appropriate them as their own.  Does this fly in the face of Paul's impassioned argumentation in Romans?  Yes, but it has happened anyway.  

To read America into 2 Chronicles 7:14 is to lessen the uniqueness of God's call to Israel.  It downplays God's choice of this people, and decides to replace it with another people of our choosing.  We, the Church, cannot replace Israel in God's plans, to go beyond that false theology and think that America can stand beside Israel and claim the same promises (conveniently ignoring the curses), or worse yet replace Israel as the sole recipient of those promises, is folly, arrogance, and antisemitism. 

Conclusion

Patriotism can be a good thing, but it also potentially very dangerous, especially to Christians.  Love of country can be a good thing, but it is also potentially very dangerous when it skews our thinking.  America is not the Church and America is not Israel, and 2 Chronicles 7:14 does not belong to either of one of them.  

Would God 'heal this land' if repentance swept the nation?  Yes, but not in the same way that 2 Chronicles 7:14 promises (good harvests, freedom from illnesses, rest from enemies), and not because we are 'his people' or 'called by his name'.  Repentance would lead to a form of healing because the very nature of existence reflects the nature of God, thus always making evil a dead end path and righteousness a blessing.  This dynamic is true for every individual and every grouping of people, whether they know God or not.  To invoke 2 Chronicles 7:14, and claim its promise as our own, goes beyond this, leading to both false hope in promises God has not made to us, and distortions of the necessary boundaries between our Heavenly and Earthly citizenships.

2 Chronicles 7:14 Isn’t About American Politics - by Russell Moore

Further writings from me on related topics:

Mark Meadows, Ginni Thomas, and the blasphemy of thinking God is on your side.

The irrefutable rejection of Christian Nationalism by the New Testament

Ronald Reagan was wrong, America is not a "city on a hill", it never could be.

The blasphemous "One Nation Under God" painting by Jon McNaughton

Rejecting Idolatry: No, Mike Pence, we will not, "Fix our eyes on Old Glory"

Another Mass Murder inspired by the Evil of the "Great Replacement" theory

Nine people murdered at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015.  In August 2017, White Supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia marched with torches shouting, "The Jews will not replace us!"  Eleven people murdered at Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 2018.  Twenty-three people murdered at an El Paso, Texas Walmart in 2019.  Fifty people murdered at two mosques in New Zealand in 2019.  And now, ten people murdered at a grocery story in Buffalo, New York on May 14th, 2022.  All of the killers were white men, and all of their targets were chosen because of race.  It is racism at its most vile, empowered by the ability of one person to murder dozens in a few moments, but otherwise little different in terms of the hatred involved and the goal desired from the lynching's of the Klan.  The history of this attitude in America also includes the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the Know Nothing party's anti-immigrant rhetoric, and similar such efforts to preserve America for people 'like us' in skin tone and culture.

What is the 'Great Replacement' and how is it tied to the Buffalo shooting suspect? - By Dustin Jones, NPR

It would seem like an obvious response to condemn the ideology of those who perpetuate mass murder, it was certainly what happened in America after 9/11 to Islamic Fundamentalism, but in fact the "Great Replacement" has been gaining acceptance and supports from well known pundits and politicians in recent years (in the midst of the ongoing slaughter of innocents), most notably from Tucker Carlson.

Fox News star Tucker Carlson's 'great replacement' segment used a new frame for an old fear There are still plenty of Americans seeking confirmation that their rank nativism is right. - by Casey Michel, NBC

How does one avoid politics, my goal, when pundits (and politicians) are advocating an ideology that continues to inspire mass murderers?  In this case, I cannot.  What America's immigration policy should be is another conversation, but what cannot be mainstreamed is the notion that White lives are of more value than non-White lives.  There is not way around the conclusion that the "Great Replacement" theory embraced by Tucker Carlson (and others) is making this 'us' vs 'them' mathematical calculus.  

Matthew 28:18-20 (NIV) Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Galatians 3:28 (NIV) There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Revelation 7:9 (NIV) After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

I have heard Galatians 3:28 quoted against those fighting racial injustice, along with MLK Jr's famous, "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  Both of course out-of-context uses that twist the meaning in the opposite direction to protect racial injustice.  In fact, it is the White Supremacists, and those adjacent to them advocating the "Great Replacement" who ignore the call of Scripture to ignore race for the sake of the Gospel.  To God, our Creator, it is anathema to proclaim that 'we' cannot let 'them' replace 'us'.  Who do 'we' think we are?  By what right do we deserve this land, this nation, any more than they?  Nationalism gives us reasons to thump our chests and call it 'our land', but a Christian Worldview that affirms that we are but stewards of God's Creation must reject such claims of preferential treatment, we live here by the Grace of God, not our own merits. 

The Church is growing rapidly in the non-White parts of the world, it has been for the past several generations at the same time that is has been shrinking in Europe and America.  The Church is less White today than it was thirty years ago, and that trend continues.  That the Church in the West is struggling is cause for grief, repentance, and renewed faithfulness, that it is growing rapidly in much of the rest of the world is cause for celebration, joy, and hope.

The Gospel rejects, utterly, racial superiority.  The Gospel rejects, utterly, tribalism and nationalism.  The Church in America must have none of this, millions of self-proclaimed Christian Americans may look to Tucker Carlson and others pushing the "Great Replacement" as some sort of 'savior' of Christianity, but like Vladimir Putin has monstrously proven himself to be, this is a false hope, an anti-Christ (in the New Testament sense, something against-Christ).  One cannot 'save' the Church through racism, one can only stain the Bride of Christ.

The irrefutable rejection of Christian Nationalism by the New Testament

White Nationalism and White Supremacy are an abomination to the Church

How should Christians feel about refugees?

Josh McDowell's folly in addition to racism: Claiming that the Bible only talks about individuals

It doesn't have to be this way, hope exists: That time UAW members worked with Quakers to build integrated housing

When the shameful past of Racism hits close to home

Taking the name of the LORD in vain: PragerU's "Social Justice Isn't Justice"

Addendum: Following the revelation that the Buffalo shooter was influenced by the "Great Replacement" Theory, Tucker Carlson responded by defending his ongoing use of it because, in his mind, it isn't a conspiracy theory but a reality.  That this 'theory' is based upon an us vs. them mentality, viewing the lives of American citizens as inherently superior to those of the rest of the world, reminds us that its roots are in Nationalism and Racism, concepts that are anathema to the Universal Church.

The troubling whitewashing of Jonathan Edwards' ownership of slaves by John Piper

Coming to terms with the flaws of your heroes can be rough.  We all need heroes, mentors, those who will inspire us and open our hearts and minds as we grow toward intellectual and spiritual maturity, but those to whom we look are not flawless.  In some cases, the flaw if well known.  Martin Luther, for example, wrote and spoke in favor of kind treatment of the Jews of Europe earlier in his Post-Reformation career, only to change course around 1536, ultimately writing a disgusting tract entitled, On the Jews and Their Lies.  This change in his thinking taints the last ten years of Luther's life, increases the scrutiny of anything he wrote in that period, and of course complicates his legacy because his antisemitism was influential in the road that eventually led to the Holocaust.  When considering Martin Luther, the bravery of "Here I stand, I can do no other" is weighed with the darkness that made a home in his thinking later in life.  People are complicated, they all have flaws, heroes are no exception.  Not every hero has a glaring flaw, let us not be that jaded, but some do, and pretending otherwise is a bad idea.

Which brings us to one of Christianity's great preachers, Jonathan Edwards, a leader of the Great Awakening along with George Whitefield, who was used by God to bring about tremendous reform in the American Church.  And a slave owner. {Jonathan Edwards' disturbing support for slavery: some reflections, by David Baker }  In 2019, Pastor Jason Meyer wrestled with Edwards' legacy in light of his owning of slaves, Jonathan Edwards and His Support of Slavery: A Lament, without attempting to sugarcoat or excuse Edwards' choices:

Jonathan Edwards had more intellectual firepower than any person reading this article, and he was a systematic thinker. He could connect theological dots like no one else. If he could succumb to such obvious, woeful oppression and injustice and theological hypocrisy, then we should be spurred on to greater levels of self-examination. Where are our blind spots? Or where do we willfully turn a blind eye to things we’re simply afraid to address?

And then this month, Meyer's mentor, who picked Meyer to succeed him as the lead pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, decided to revisit Jonathan Edward's legacy by speculating that Edwards owned slaves with good intentions: How Could Jonathan Edwards Own Slaves? Wrestling with the History of a Hero:

I do not know whether Edwards purchased the 14-year-old Venus to rescue her from abuse. I do not know whether she was given care in the Edwards home far above what she could have hoped for under many other circumstances at age 14. I do not know if the boy Titus was similarly bought to rescue him from distress and was then given hope. I do not know if the Edwardses used their upper-class privileges (including the power to purchase slaves) for beneficent purposes toward at-risk black children. The scope of what we do not know is very great.

If someone says, “Piper, this is just wishful thinking,” my answer is that indeed it is wishful thinking. I do not wish for one of my heroes to be more tarnished than he already is. But perhaps it is not just wishful thinking. My wishes are not baseless, however unlikely they may seem against the backdrop of mid-eighteenth-century attitudes. All I know of the godliness that Edwards taught, and in so many ways modeled, inclines me to wish in just this way. It is the sort of dream that, if it came true, would not surprise me.

Rather than wrestling with the contradiction in Edward's life and testimony that the owning of slaves makes clear, Piper has decided (at this particular moment) to attempt to excuse/explain this flaw, leading to predictable blowback: Christian Leaders React to John Piper’s Thoughts on His ‘Hero’ Who Owned Slaves By Jessica Lea and John Piper's 'Wishful Thinking' about Jonathan Edwards and Slavery, by Chris Gehrz.

This change of tone is particularly disturbing, in part, because John Piper himself had a much more balanced and God honoring answer to the fact that Edwards owned slaves in 2013: Slavery and Jonathan Edwards.  Had he left it at that, we wouldn't be questioning his thought processes and conclusions now.  My past self doesn't always agree with my current self, but hopefully that's because I've grown in wisdom and knowledge, maybe even humility, it is hard for me to see how this could be the case regarding this particular issue and John Piper.

There is much to admire about the life and ministry of John Piper, even if one rejects his strict Complementarianism, as I do, but this late in life attempt to polish the image of Edwards is certainly troubling.  When taken together with the choice of the seminary that Piper founded to make its new president Pastor Joe Rigney, whose current crusade (along with other like minded fellows) is to declare Empathy a Sin: Have you heard the one about empathy being a sin? by Mark Wingfield at the same time that Pastor Jason Meyer resigned from Bethlehem Baptist Church, along with two other pastors.  The three pastors in question were, as noted by Christianity Today the staff's most empathetic pastors.  {This article is insightful: Bethlehem Baptist Leaders Clash Over ‘Coddling’ and ‘Cancel Culture’ A debate over “untethered empathy” underscores how departing leaders, including John Piper’s successor, approached hot-button issues like race and abuse. KATE SHELLNUTT}.  #1 Rigney vs. Empathy, #2 Meyer and other pastors resign, #3 Piper speculates that Edwards owned slaves for good reasons.  

In the end, I don't know John Piper personally, and he certainly has no idea who I am.  I've never been to Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis.  And yet, at the same time that John Piper and Joe Rigney are badmouthing empathy and disparaging the idea of feeling the pain of others {declaring it to be a SIN of all things},  John Piper also decides to look on the sunny side of Edwards' ownership of slaves.  Taken together, these two purposeful stances are an ominous sign that doesn't belong in any church of any denomination: The pain felt by the oppressed is not their problem.

For more discussion of the "Empathy is Sin" debacle:

Empathy is Not a Sin, by Warren Throckmorton

“Your Empathy Is a Sin”: A Response to Desiring God, by Rebecca Davis

Empathy is a Virtue SCOT MCKNIGHT

QAnon's kidnapping and “adrenochroming of children” is just repackaging the medieval antisemitic Blood Libel, the whole movement must be utterly rejected.

 John 8:44 (NIV)  You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

2 Corinthians 11:14 (NIV)  And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

The Truth matters, embracing lies, for whatever reason, is the path of self-destruction.  If the Chruch fails to exorcise this QAnon 'demon' now, it will reap the whirlwind later.

When QAnon first appeared on my radar I shared briefly some responses debunking its odd conspiracy theories, with one respondent telling me that I was wasting my time with such a fringe element.  That was a year ago.  Today, roughly 20% of Americans believe (to an extent) that there really is a global conspiracy of elites to kidnap children for pedophelia and/or 'adrenochroming'.  That this is not actually true has not slowed the ludicrous speed of the spread of these lies.  In addition to endangering our republic, and inspiring violence, the basis of QAnon's primary conspiracy is just a repackaged medieval Blood Libel, and if it grows strong enough, it will lead to mass violence against Jews; again, with so-called Christians cheering them on, again.

In April, "Passsion of the Christ" star Jim Caviezel gave an interview {‘Passion of the Christ’ Star Jim Caviezel Pushes False QAnon Conspiracy at Right-Wing Conference} to a COVID-19 conspiracy theory conference in which he claimed to have knowledge of secret riturals being performed by an international elite to harvest the adreneline from the bodies of children (who would be killed in the process) in order to obtain perpetual youth for those who drank this unholy elixir.  The "adrenochroming of children" is just one of the manifestations of the QAnon conspiracy theory about the kidnapping and abuse of children by a shadowy organization, comprised of elites from the political world and Hollywood; a group significantly more Jewish than the population as a whole.  To those who know the sordid history of the relationship between the Church and Jews, this revival of the medieval Blood Libel is not surprising, as evil ideas do not fully die when discredited, but it is ominous, as the last time the Blood Libel gained a wide audience it began the dark road of modern antisemitism that led to the Holocaust.

The History of the Blood Libel

The following section in bold is verbatim from the Anti-Defamation League website: adl.org

The “blood libel” refers to a centuries-old false allegation that Jews murder Christians – especially Christian children – to use their blood for ritual purposes, such as an ingredient in the baking of Passover matzah (unleavened bread). It is also sometimes called the “ritual murder charge.” The blood libel dates back to the Middle Ages and has persisted despite Jewish denials and official repudiations by the Catholic Church and many secular authorities. Blood libels have frequently led to mob violence and pogroms, and have occasionally led to the decimation of entire Jewish communities.

The blood libel is particularly appalling in light of the fact that Jews follow the Hebrew Bible’s law to not consume any blood, which is found in the book of Leviticus. In order for an animal to be considered kosher, all its blood must have been drained and discarded.

ORIGINS OF THE BLOOD LIBEL

The first ritual muder charge took place in Norwich, England, in the twelfth century. A boy named William was found dead in the woods outside of town, and a monk, Thomas of Monmouth, accused local Jews of torturing him and murdering him in mockery of the crucifixion of Jesus. Although many townspeople did not believe this claim, a cult venerating the boy eventually sprang up. At this time the myth began to circulate that each year, Jewish leaders around the world met to choose a country and a town from which a Christian would be apprehended and murdered.

The blood libel spread throughout the Christian world in the Middle Ages. When a Christian child went missing, it was not uncommon for local Jews to be blamed. Even when there was no evidence that any Jew had anything to do with the missing child, Jews were tortured until they confessed to heinous crimes. Some Christians believed that the four cups of wine that Jews drink at the Passover Seder celebrations were actually blood, or that Jews mixed blood into hamantaschen, sweet pastries eaten on the Jewish holiday of Purim. Others claimed that Jews used Christian blood as a medicine or even as an aphrodisiac. Scholars have documented about 100 blood libels that took place from the twelfth to sixteenth centuries. Many of them resulted in massacres of Jews.

THE BLOOD LIBEL IN MODERN TIMES

The blood libel persisted into modern times. In 1840, members of the Damascus Jewish community were charged with kidnapping and killing a Christian priest who had disappeared. Several notable Jews from Damascus were tortured to extract confessions, and an angry mob destroyed a synagogue and its Torah scrolls. Jews were massacred repeatedly in the Muslim world, partly as a result of this libel, which had been imported from Christian society.

Blood libels continued even into the twentieth century as well. In 1913 a Ukrainian Jew named Menahem Mendel Beilis was charged with ritually killing a Christian child whose body was discovered near a local brick factory in Kiev. During a sensational trial, numerous respected Russian intellectuals and scholars testified that Jews attacked Christians and used their blood in obscene rituals. Ultimately Beilis was acquitted of the charges, but not before horrific anti-Semitic claims were repeated and broadcast throughout Russia.

A blood libel even occurred in Massena, New York, in 1928. When a four-year-old girl went missing from her home, a rumor spread that local Jews had kidnapped and killed her. Crowds gathered outside Massena’s police station, where the town’s rabbi had been summoned. A state trooper questioned the rabbi, and asked him whether Jews offered human sacrifices or used blood in rituals. The girl was eventually found alive and unharmed.

And this discussion of origins from Diarmaid MacCulloch's amazing book: Christianity, the First Three Thousand Years, p. 400-401

One of the characteristics of Western Christianity between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries is its identification of various groups within the Western world as distinct, marginal and a constant potential threat to good order: principlal among such groups were Jews, heretics, lepers and (curiously belatedly) homosexuals.  In 1321 there was a panic all over France, ranging from poor folk to King Philip V himself, that lepers and Jews had combined together with the great external enemy, Islam, to overthrow all good order in Christendom by poisoning wells.  Lepers (as if they had not enough misfortune) were victimized, tortured into confessions and burned at the stake, and the pogroms against Jews were no less horrific.  Muslims were lucky enough to be out of reach on that occasion.  From the mid-twelth century, a particularly persistent and pernicious community response to the occasional abuse and murder of children was to deflect guilt from Christians by blaming Jews for abducting the children for use in rituals.  This so-called 'blood libel' frequently resulted in vicious attacks on Jewish communities.  Sometimes higher clergy did their best to calm the community hysteria in such cases; sometimes they allowed shrine-cults of the murdered victims to develop.  Recurrences of the blood libel persisted into the twentieth century as a blemish on Christian attitudes to Jews, spreading from the West into Orthodoxy in later centuries.

And this chilling conclusion about the path that led to the Holocaust from MacCulloch, p. 948

It will not do to point out the undoubted fact that most Nazis hated Christianity and would have done their best to destroy its insitutional power if they had been victorious.  As the Nazi extermination machine enrolled countless thousands of European Christians as facilitators or uncomplaining bystanders of its industrialized killing of Jews, it could succeed in co-opting them in the work of dehumanizing the victims because the collaborators had absorbed eighteen centuries of Chrstian negative stereotypes of Judaism..the most mendacious and marginalizing such as the 'blood libel'

Lastly, below are quotes from the articles linked at the bottom.

But historians offer another thesis for the purpose QAnon serves. The “nocturnal ritual fantasy”—a term coined by the historian Norman Cohn in his landmark study of European witch trials, Europe’s Inner Demons—is a recurring trope in Western history. And it is often a politically useful one. Deployed by the Romans against early Christians, by Christians against Jews, by Christians against witches, by Catholics against “heretics,” it is a malleable set of accusations that posit that a social out-group is engaged in perverse, ritualistic behaviors that target innocents—and that the out-group and all its enablers must be crushed. - Talia Lavin

It is easier to imagine violent predation by political opponents—and perhaps unleash vengeance against them—when you already believe they consort with demons and drink the blood of children for amusement. - Talia Lavin

“This whole blood libel is very prominent there, the idea of kidnapping children for blood,” said Magda Teter, a Jewish studies professor and author of “Blood Libel: On the Trail of an Antisemitic Myth.” “People are going to start googling ‘killing children for blood.’ That will lead them to anti-Semitism even if they may not be initially inclined.”- Ben Sales

Some of QAnon’s supporters are surely aware that they are targeting Jews. But the ideas of harvesting children’s blood and controlling the world through a secret cabal are anti-Semitic even if the growing numbers of QAnon adherents don’t realize it, or don’t directly refer to Jews, Teter said. These ideas are so old and established, she said, that they function as codes for anti-Semitism and obviate the need to mention Jews directly. - Ben Sales

QAnon, Blood Libel, and the Satanic Panic How the ancient, antisemitic nocturnal ritual fantasy expresses itself through the ages—and explains the right’s fascination with fringe conspiracy theories - by Talia Lavin, The New Republic

Fear and adrenochrome: The conspiracy theory right is addicted to crazy ideas about a drug - by Ben Sixsmith, The Spectator World

QAnon an old form of anti-Semitism in a new package, say experts Some of those tracking conspiracy theory note its use of tropes, vocabulary of anti-Semitic propaganda and blood libels throughout history By Ben Sales, The Times of Israel

** An added connection to antisemitic tropes: QAnon's foe is a shadowy group of elites, not much different from the nonsense that "Jews run the world", that lie was used to devestating effect against Jews.  In addition, two of the biggest villains of Q are the Rothschild family and George Soros, in other words, rich Jews. **

There is NO place in the Church of Jesus for QAnon; period, end of story.  Just as there is not place in the Church of Jesus for antisemitism.  A rational analysis of QAnon's beliefs will demonstrate that at its heart, in addition to being a lie, it is full of antisemitism.  The Church must firmly, fully, and forcefully reject this belief system, even if it causes those who adhere to it to leave the church (showing their true loyalty) and even if it costs some ministers their jobs.  This issue is that serious.

I'm not willing to ignore Antisemitism on Christmas Eve (or ever).

Unless the name of Jesus is entirely unknown to you, you probably know that Jesus was a Jew.  He was born of Mary, and raised by Joseph as his earthly father, both of whom were of the tribe of Judah, one of Jacob's sons, who was himself Abraham's grandson.  He was raised in an observant household, circumcised on the eighth day, and went with his family every year to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover.  It is for this reason, among others, that Antisemitism by Christians is a slap in the face of God, it is a stain upon the Bride of Christ, and the greatest shame of the people called by God to form the New Covenant.  That being said, it is particularly galling to hear of antisemitism, and from an extremely famous and well connected American, at Christmas.  In this case, the person wallowing in the old racist trope that Jews control the world, is the former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani.  The target?  The favorite punching bag of white nationalists and neo-nazis: Jewish billionaire George Soros.  I have no interest in engaging in a debate about the politics of George Soros.  It is well documented that he funds causes that he believes in, much like millions of people all over the globe.  It is his right to support and fund these causes, and it is the right of others to oppose those same causes.  One can disagree with the politics of George Soros, and express that disagreement, without painting him as a nefarious puppet master, and without denigrating his Jewish heritage.  Rudy Giuliani has chosen, and not for the first time, to engage in the latter.  In an interview with New York magazine {A Conversation With Rudy Giuliani Over Bloody Marys at the Mark Hotel By Olivia Nuzzi}{Rudy Giuliani says he's "more of a Jew" than Holocaust survivor George Soros BY SOPHIE LEWIS} he said the following,

“Don’t tell me I’m anti-Semitic if I oppose him,” he said. “Soros is hardly a Jew. I’m more of a Jew than Soros is. I probably know more about — he doesn’t go to church, he doesn’t go to religion — synagogue. He doesn’t belong to a synagogue, he doesn’t support Israel, he’s an enemy of Israel. He’s elected eight anarchist DA’s in the United States. He’s a horrible human being.”

It is perfectly possible to oppose the politics of George Soros without being anti-Semitic, just as it is possible to oppose the politics of Benjamin Netanyahu without being anti-Israel.  What is not possible, is to declare a HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR to be a non-Jew, or to declare yourself (as for example, a person of Italian descent raised as a Roman Catholic) as 'more of a Jew' than any person of Jewish descent, no matter their politics, or lack thereof.  When the Nazis murdered more than 6 million Jews, they didn't ask them what their politics were, and they didn't spare those families who had served the Reich faithfully during WWI, nor even those who were not practicing the faith of Abraham.  Jewish blood, even if only two grandparents were Jewish, was enough for a death sentence (and sometimes not even that, suspicion alone could prove fatal).  {The Nuremberg Laws: Holocaust and Human Behavior}

The family of George Soros faced extermination during the Nazi reign of terror, that of Rudy Giuliani did not.  How did Soros' family in Hungary survive?  By faking documents and pretending to be Christians until the war ended.  It doesn't matter to me, at all, what political party Rudy Giuliani supports, or if he wasn't involved in politics at all.  Antisemitism is a cancer, a despicable stain on the human condition, and an example par excellence of fallen human nature.  It must be condemned, it must be opposed, or in future generations they will wonder how anyone could have forgotten the Holocaust and let it happen again.

Sermon Video: The LORD dwells in Zion - Joel 3

The finale of the message of the prophet Joel is upon God's ongoing concern for the people and land of Israel.  "In those days", in other words, during the End Times, God will administer his justice upon those who have chosen to mistreat the descendants of Abraham, a strong warning against the evil of Anti-Semitism.  At that time, Jesus will also reign from Jerusalem, as God once more dwells within the Holy City.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Christian Antisemitism: An utterly absurd oxymoron

Tension between Judaism and Christianity goes back to the generation of Jesus and the Apostles.  John the Baptist was accepted as a prophet by the followers of Christ, but rejected by the official leadership of Judaism in Jerusalem.  Likewise, Jesus himself, although like John receiving support from the masses, was rejected by all but a few in the hierarchy of Judaism, a group that was the focus of much of Jesus' ire in his preaching.  In the Early Church, first centered in Jerusalem under the leadership of Jesus' half-brother James, and peopled almost entirely by converts from Judaism (who considered themselves to be reformers of Judaism, not founders of a new religion), there was also tension with the leadership of Judaism which led to the first Christian martyr after Jesus: Stephen. 
The Early Church might have retained a strong connection to Judaism if not for two later developments: the massive success of the Apostle Paul among Gentiles (and concurrent failure among his own people, leading to the anguished thoughts of Romans 9-11, excerpted below), and the destruction of Jerusalem leading to the end of 2nd Temple Judaism and the Diaspora.  As the first generation of the Church came to a close, the organization took on a distinctly Gentile character, and its Jewish origins faded into the background.
Animosity and hostility toward the Jewish minority in what was to become Christendom was not non-existent, but it was never widespread on the level that would become the later pogroms, forced conversions by the Inquisition, and then ultimately genocide at the hands of the Nazis until the Late Middle Ages.  In 1096, in response to Pope Urban II's call for a Crusade to recapture the Holy Land, Peter the Hermit, who raised an army in the Rhineland, perpetuated there the first large scale massacre of Jews by Christians.  To the shame of the Church, this trend has continued to this day, and while few are alive who witnessed the Holocaust, the scourge of Antisemitism residing within those claiming to be a part of the Church remains.

This is, of course, a patent absurdity.  There is no such thing as Christian Antisemitism.  There are those who claim to be Christian who espouse Antisemitism, and there may be those who are indeed Christians whose minds are still infected with Antisemitism, but the two mindsets are diametrically opposed to each other.  In the end, the mind of Christ will prevail, and hate will be banished, or the true un-regenerated nature of those claiming to follow Christ will be revealed and their ongoing hatred will refute any pretense of being a Christ-follower.

There is, and must be, a gap between Christianity and Judaism (as long as one accepts and the other rejects Jesus as the Messiah), but that gap ought to elicit sorrow and compassion on the part of Christians, as it did for the Apostle Paul, and not prejudice or hatred.  We have, as Christians, an undeniable debt toward Judaism, for our New Covenant and New Testament are built upon the Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenant and the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is incumbent upon Christians, always and everywhere, not as an option but an obligation, to reject Antisemitism in both its violent forms and its more subtle conspiracy theories and racial stereotypes, those who fail to do so are doing a disservice to the Gospel, and those who instead embrace them by their attitudes/words/actions are declaring themselves to be fighting against the Word of God, and calling into question their own salvation.

That the Church has failed to live up to the demands of Scripture by allowing Antisemitism to fester and even thrive in its midst, and that the people associated with the Church have been either bystanders to, or complicit in, the brutalization of the Jewish people and eventually their genocide, is the greatest shame and most enduring stain upon the Bride of Christ.  We, collectively, over the past 2,000 years, have failed in this, we will answer to God for that failure, for Christian Antisemitism is an abomination.

Romans 9:3-5 New International Version (NIV)
3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Romans 11:1-6 New International Version (NIV)

11 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Romans 11:11-24 New International Version (NIV)
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!