A U.S. Department of Education regulatory reform officer has assured the nation’s Christian colleges that the agency is taking several steps to protect the religious liberty of their institutions and students, including a proposed rule currently up for public comment.

Robert Eitel, the senior counselor to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, spoke at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities Presidents Conference on Capitol Hill Wednesday.

“The secretary is committed to respecting your convictions and free exercise of religious beliefs that our Constitution has protected,” Eitel told the audience gathered in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. “The freedom of religion is more than simply freedom. It is much more. In fact, Secretary DeVos says the First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect us from religion. It exists to protect religion from the government.”

Eitel, a lawyer who previously served as vice president for regulatory compliance for several post-secondary institutions, detailed various ways the administration is trying to ensure that faith-based institutions are not disadvantaged because of their religious mission.

He pointed out that President Donald Trump “set the table” for promoting religious freedom across all federal agencies with an executive order in 2017.

Also, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Trinity Lutheran ruling in 2017 and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ 2017 memorandum on religious liberty have “laid the groundwork” for DeVos to propose important changes to the department’s regulations and rules, he added.

Last year, the department proposed a new rule to change accreditation regulations under the Higher Education Act. The final rule is set to go into effect this July. Eitel highlighted a few provisions in the rule that are of note to Christian higher education institutions.

“The takeaway is this,” he said. “An accreditation agency may not use as a negative factor the fact that you are a faith-based institution, that you have a religious mission.”

Concern was raised by Christian college leaders in 2018 after one accreditation agency proposed a new policy that would have removed a requirement for the agency to take into account institutions’ “specific and diverse” missions when assessing the schools’ commitment to diversity.

Eitel said the new rule defines what a religious mission is under the Higher Education Act.

“Congress mandated that agencies respect the diversity of missions in institutions, including religious missions. But there is no definition. We provided one in our regulation,” he said.

He explained that the definition of religious mission as defined by the rule is: “the published institutional mission that is approved by the governing body of an institution of postsecondary education that includes, refers to or is predicated by religious tenets, beliefs or teachings.”

“What is important there is this: There are several regulatory references … that relate to how accreditation agencies handle the issue of religious mission in schools. There are mandates in the regulation that require accreditation agencies to ensure consistency in decision making when it comes to faith-based institutions. There are also provisions related to procedures for submitting an application for recognition by accrediting agencies in the department and how the department [enforces] those regulations.”

Eitel said that the department is in the process of consulting with accreditation agencies about how they can comply with the new rule.

“We intend to enforce this aspect … in our own review of accreditation agencies,” he stated.

SOURCE: Christian Post, Samuel Smith

All Content & Images are provided by the acknowledged source

… Read More

Click here to read the rest of the story from our content source/partners – Christian Headlines.

قالب وردپرس

Emmy Yang is a Theology, Medicine, and Culture Fellow at Duke Divinity School and a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily represent those of BCNN1.

From its epicenter in Wuhan, China, the current coronavirus outbreak is stoking fear and disrupting travel and business across the globe. More than 150 people have died from the virus in China alone, and more than 8,000 are infected across 20 countries—exceeding the SARS epidemic in 2003.

Citizens in Wuhan, a major central city comparable to Chicago, are under lockdown by the government and public activities have come to a standstill, including annual celebrations for Chinese New Year (which began on January 25). Chinese Christians, in Wuhan and China at large, have faced difficult decisions about whether to join the millions of Chinese who return home to visit family (as is customary during the lunar holiday season), to flee from the mainland, or even to gather for regular Sunday services.

But are followers of Jesus right to flee an epidemic when people are suffering and dying?

In the 16th century, German Christians asked theologian Martin Luther for a response to this very question.

In 1527, less than 200 years after the Black Death killed about half the population of Europe, the plague re-emerged in Luther’s own town of Wittenberg and neighboring cities. In his letter “Whether One May Flee from a Deadly Plague,” the famous reformer weighs the responsibilities of ordinary citizens during contagion. His advice serves as a practical guide for Christians confronting infectious disease outbreaks today.

First, Luther argued that anyone who stands in a relationship of service to another has a vocational commitment not to flee. Those in ministry, he wrote, “must remain steadfast before the peril of death.” The sick and dying need a good shepherd who will strengthen and comfort them and administer the sacraments—lest they be denied the Eucharist before their passing. Public officials, including mayors and judges, are to stay and maintain civic order. Public servants, including city-sponsored physicians and police officers, must continue their professional duties. Even parents and guardians have vocational duties toward their children.

Luther did not limit tending the sick to health care professionals. In a time when Wuhan faces a shortage of hospital beds and personnel, his counsel is especially relevant. The city, one of China’s largest with a population of about 11 million, is in the process of rapidly constructing two new hospitals to accommodate growing crowds of coronavirus patients. Lay citizens, without any medical training, may find themselves in a position of providing care to the sick. Luther challenges Christians to see opportunities to tend to the sick as tending to Christ himself (Matt. 25:41–46). Out of love for God emerges the practice of love for neighbor.

But Luther does not encourage his readers to expose themselves recklessly to danger. His letter constantly straddles two competing goods: honoring the sanctity of one’s own life, and honoring the sanctity of those in need. Luther makes it clear that God gives humans a tendency toward self-protection and trusts that they will take care of their bodies (Eph. 5:29; 1 Cor. 12:21–26). He defends public health measures such as quarantines and seeking medical attention when available. In fact, Luther proposes that not to do so is to act recklessly. Just as God has gifted humans with their bodies, so too he has gifted the medicines of the earth.

What if a Christian still desires to flee? Luther affirms that this may, in fact, be the believer’s faithful response, provided that no emergency exists and that they arrange substitutes who will “take care of the sick in their stead and nurse them.” Notably, Luther also reminds readers that salvation is independent of these good works. He ultimately tasks them to decide whether to flee or to stay during plagues, trusting that they will arrive at a faithful decision through prayer and meditation on the Scriptures. Participation in aiding the sick arises out of grace, not obligation.

Source: Christianity Today

All Content & Images are provided by the acknowledged source

Scot McKnight is an American New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, theologian, and author who has written widely on the historical Jesus, early Christianity and Christian living. He is currently Professor of New Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, IL. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily represent those of BCNN1.

One of my favorite New Testament letters is The Letter to Philemon. I was so glad when Jon Pott, then editor at Eerdmans, gave permission to write this commentary separate from Colossians.

We should read this letter carefully, especially in a day when evangelicals are discovering (again) the value of justice and working to liberate humans from oppressions of many sorts.

Why?

#1: Slavery has immediate connections to our world.

The slave Onesimus (=Handyman) has probably run away; the slavemaster, Philemon, has probably been shamed (at least in the household); Philemon probably was also financially damaged. So we are looking at a slave who has offended the honor of a slavemaster. We are looking at a slave who is willing to return.

How Philemon treats his slave Onesimus puts the Christian gospel and Christian ethics on the line.

In our world, any situation where status differentials are at work is immediately addressed by Paul’s letter to Philemon.

In our world there are millions of slaves, and this letter tells Christians in cultures where there are slaves to fight for the brothers and sisters and to establish cultures where siblingship not slavery becomes the norm. (I have a long section in the book on modern slavery; this section was researched by Justin Gill, an assistant of mine.) We may not have slavery as some cultures today but we’ve got status differentials not unlike slavery.

What is Paul’s answer to the Philemon-Onesimus differential in status and power? “No longer a slave, better than a slave, a brother or a sibling.”

That’s the Christian answer to these differentials: No longer! No longer equality, justice, eradication of status differentials by the Body of Christ in the Body of Christ and beyond!

#2: Power is perennially a problem.

This point is entailed in #1, but power itself deserves to be addressed. It is too easy to create a culture of power and authority that becomes a culture of authoritarianism and inequality and injustice and narcissism and fear. It is far harder to create a culture where power is surrendered for the good of the other. “No longer a slave, better than a slave, a sibling.” Power that is not used to create cultures of siblingship are not Christian cultures. Christian power creates siblings of one another.

Everything learned about power in our culture — well not everything but almost everything — is challenged by what the gospel teaches and announces as true in Christ:

#3: Reconciliation is the message.

The slaveowner Philemon had options: he could punish Onesimus and in that punishment implicate any other slaves connected to Onesimus. He could diminish his status in a number of ways. Philemon could “bring justice” to use the language of so many in our culture.

What was Paul’s message? Welcome him as you would welcome me, he tells Philemon. Which means Paul wanted reconciliation: he wanted Philemon to welcome, to embrace, to forgive, to restore, and to reconcile. To start all over again, but no longer as a slave and no longer as a slaveowner. To start all over again as siblings — Paul, Philemon, Onesimus. Three brothers, not three levels of power or hierarchy.

#4 Decision is the implication.

What is perhaps most amazing about this letter, and what is most needful for churches today in reading and preaching and teaching this letter is this: Philemon is put into the corner of decision by Paul.

The audience who heard this letter publicly read would have been asking all along: “What will Philemon say? What will he do?” This isn’t a theoretical letter about pre-emancipation theories about slaves. This is a pastoral letter from an apostle, who refuses to claim his authority (and so models what he wants Philemon to do), to a co-worker named Philemon who ran a household and who had slaves and who had power.

#5 The way of the empire is not the way of Christ.

A striking flash of a new way of life is found in Philemon: the way of the empire was most likely the way of punishment — from beatings and diminishment and permanent scarring and life-long shackles to capital punishment.

The way of Christ is conversion, is gospel, is advocacy for the runaway by the apostle, is sending him back to Philemon for Philemon’s decision, is confessions and forgivenesses and embraces and and reconciliations.

#6 The church is the location of kingdom realities taking form.

I am unpersuaded this was Paul’s agenda for the Roman empire. It was well beyond his scope. What he had in mind was something smaller and something deeper: No longer a slave, better than a slave, a brother.

Paul is not trying to change Roman laws — and that would take centuries of moral failure and ethical vision for the church to see through slavery to the radical reality of “no longer a slave, better than a slave, a brother.”

But Paul did see that the church could be a different place; that the church could be kingdom space embodied.

Source: Christianity Today

All Content & Images are provided by the acknowledged source

Ed Stetzer: Today I am glad to welcome Nik Ripken to The Exchange. Nik is arguably one of the leading experts on Christian persecution in Muslim contexts. He is author of the new book The Insanity of Sacrifice.

Ed: What prompted you to write this devotional?

Nik: The center for worship and witness in our world is in homes. This book was written to assist families and singles as they center worship in their homes. The number one request that Ruth and I receive is to develop resources to help parents center worship in family settings. We wrote this book, praying that families will share truths from the Bible and Christ’s stories around the table as they share meals with family, friends, and their neighbors.

Ed: What has most surprised you about how God has worked your latest book?

Nik: After listening and learning from believers undergoing persecution, we knew that we had to write The Insanity of God in order to give believers in persecution their voice back. They needed to become our teachers and mentors.

Often, the persecutors will say, “Your story will die with you in this prison cell, or in this room where you are under house arrest, or in this insane asylum where we have chained you.”

More than that, we knew that believers in persecution have earned the right to be our teachers, reminding us that resurrection follows crucifixion.

Yet what has surprised us the most is the number of people who, through reading The Insanity of God, allowed the Holy Spirit to bring them to salvation through Christ’s story found in the stories of believers in persecution. It has led, often, to a greater witness. One 93-year-old man told Ruth and me that after reading the book, he vowed to God that he would share Christ with at least one person a day. He has kept that promise. The international impact of this book has been a great surprise and encouragement.

Ed: How do you hope readers grow from using it for 90 days?

Nik: Our prayer is two-fold: One, it will drive people to a life of devotion centered in Bible study and prayer and they will begin and end their day in the presence of Almighty God. They will model for their children, where appropriate, how time with the Father is the center of all time.

Two, we pray that Christianity in the West will be reminded that sacrifice is not a cross to bear but a joy to accept. Sacrifice in the Western context is negative; instead, it should be one of positive joy, a place of honor and our acceptable offering to God. Hopefully this book will lead people to sacrifice their time, because they love Jesus, and therefore cross the street and cross the oceans with the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Ed: What have you learned about sacrifice through your years on the mission field and in your research on the persecuted church? What does the church in the West need to learn about sacrifice?

Nik: Believers in persecution often say to us, “Never have we felt so close to Jesus as when our faith was costing us something.” Running from sacrifice is running from Jesus. Avoiding the crucifixions that life brings is to miss the resurrection that follows.

According to many, what Ruth, our sons, and I have experienced on the mission field is something to honor but not to emulate. They applaud our service, but their body language begs God not to ask the same of them!

Source: Christianity Today

All Content & Images are provided by the acknowledged source

Scot McKnight is an American New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, theologian, and author who has written widely on the historical Jesus, early Christianity and Christian living. He is currently Professor of New Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, IL. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily represent those of BCNN1.

I have been reading the novel of Eugene Vodolatzkin, called Laurus, where a pious charismatic healer is on a 15th Century but timeless journey of redemption as he ministers the graces of God to those in need of healing. Along with Vodolazkin’s wondrous novel, I have seen the news that Marilynne Robinson’s got a new one coming, called Jack, and that got me to think about Gilead and the two pastors musing about pastoring in Gilead. [#ad]

What has me pondering is the role the church plays in these novels. A role of centrality, of pious strength, and of moral direction.

Visit most any city in Europe and you will see a church, often domed and large, in the middle of the city plan. The big cities in the USA, too, often have large historic churches in the center of the city.

Why? Because the church was central. As these cities grew more churches were built because these historic cities grew with historic churches. People walked to church so there were churches in each neighborhood.

Even more, authentic spirituality was not only respected but valued. Authentic spirituality at the heart of these churches formed into Christian virtue being embodied in the church, its leaders, and its communitiy life.

This isn’t nostalgia, and we aren’t pretending to some kind of pristine America.

What I want to point to is the centrality of church in the cities of America.

No longer.

We could ask Why?

I ponder Why? because of this last Fall’s report from Pew.

The religious landscape of the United States continues to change at a rapid clip. In Pew Research Center telephone surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019, 65% of American adults describe themselves as Christians when asked about their religion, down 12 percentage points over the past decade. Meanwhile, the religiously unaffiliated share of the population, consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular,” now stands at 26%, up from 17% in 2009.

Both Protestantism and Catholicism are experiencing losses of population share. Currently, 43% of U.S. adults identify with Protestantism, down from 51% in 2009. And one-in-five adults (20%) are Catholic, down from 23% in 2009. Meanwhile, all subsets of the religiously unaffiliated population – a group also known as religious “nones” – have seen their numbers swell. Self-described atheists now account for 4% of U.S. adults, up modestly but significantly from 2% in 2009; agnostics make up 5% of U.S. adults, up from 3% a decade ago; and 17% of Americans now describe their religion as “nothing in particular,” up from 12% in 2009. Members of non-Christian religions also have grown modestly as a share of the adult population. …

The data shows that just like rates of religious affiliation, rates of religious attendance are declining. Over the last decade, the share of Americans who say they attend religious services at least once or twice a month dropped by 7 percentage points, while the share who say they attend religious services less often (if at all) has risen by the same degree. In 2009, regular worship attenders (those who attend religious services at least once or twice a month) outnumbered those who attend services only occasionally or not at all by a 52%-to-47% margin. Today those figures are reversed; more Americans now say they attend religious services a few times a year or less (54%) than say they attend at least monthly (45%).

Some think – Greeley and Houk – much of church decline in the mainline can be explained by decline in the number of children church goers have. The same trend is now being seen among evangelicals. For instance, Liuan Huska at CT:

Lily Jones Howard grew up in a church in southern California with a burgeoning children’s and youth ministry. The church held afternoon and evening AWANA clubs and ran separate junior high and high school youth groups. She compares that to the church she and her husband and two children attend now. The median age of members, she guesses, is about 65 or 70. “The pastor has said explicitly that children are the lifeblood of the church,” Howard said. The congregation makes an effort to welcome young families like hers.

Source: Christianity Today

All Content & Images are provided by the acknowledged source

… Read More

Click here to read the rest of the story from our content source/partners – Christian Headlines.

قالب وردپرس

After three years of anticipation—and dread—President Trump announced the launch of his “Deal of the Century” to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine.

With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side, he outlined details for a proposal that would recognize a Palestinian state following extensive land swaps and security arrangements.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was not present, having broken off communication with the White House following several US decisions deemed biased toward Israel.

Abbas immediately rejected the plan, which Palestinians had long declared “dead on arrival.”

But Netanyahu’s acceptance was enthusiastic, declaring himself willing to begin negotiations with the Palestinians on such terms. A day earlier, Netanyahu’s challenger Benny Gantz also signaled his party’s agreement with Trump’s proposal.

With three Arab states lacking a peace treaty with Israel in attendance—Oman, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—Trump hopes there will be a regional push to implement his plan.

And with $50 billion promised as investment for the nascent Palestinian state, the president believes all the necessary pieces are in place.

“All previous generations from Lyndon Johnson tried and bitterly failed,” Trump said. “But I was not elected to do small things, or shy away from big problems.”

It only required he approach peace in a “fundamentally different” manner.

No Arab or Israeli would be uprooted from their home. This guarantees the preservation of all existing Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

Jerusalem would remain the undivided capital of Israel. At the same time, on the other side of the separation wall, eastern Jerusalem would become the capital of the Palestinian state, receiving a US embassy.

Palestinian residents in Jerusalem on the other side of the wall would be given the option to become Palestinian citizens, Israeli citizens, or remain as permanent residents.

Israel would exercise security over Jerusalem’s holy sites, while Jordan would maintain its status quo authority over the Temple Mount and al-Aqsa Mosque. Muslim pilgrims would be guaranteed access.

Palestinian refugees would be barred from Israel but processed in limited numbers into the new state of Palestine. Pending approval, the rest would be given the option of naturalizing into their nations of residence or relocating elsewhere. Funds would be set up to facilitate.

Israel would receive land in the Jordan Valley to address security concerns. Palestine would receive land in the Negev Desert for industrial development. All international access would be controlled by Israel, with corridors created for ease of domestic transportation to non-contiguous territory.

For the first time, a conceptual map of Israel’s borders was released.

Israel would guarantee a four-year freeze on all settlements outside the scope of this plan, while Palestinian leadership studies the proposal and moves to implement it.

To do so, it must demilitarize Gaza and stop payments to the families of terrorists. Domestic laws must reflect human rights and freedom of religion.

“It is time for the Muslim world to correct the mistake it made in 1948, when it attacked rather than recognized Israel,” Trump said. “If you choose the path to peace, we will be there to help every step of the way.”

Netanyahu also referenced 1948, the year of Israel’s independence, in comparing Trump to then-US President Harry Truman. History would look back on this day similarly, he said, as Trump extended Israel’s sovereignty over “Judea and Samaria,” his favored term for the West Bank.

“You have been the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House,” he said. “There have been others, but it’s not even close.”

Joel Rosenberg, co-founder of the Alliance for the Peace of Jerusalem, was impressed.

“It was an excellent rollout ceremony,” he said, “dramatic, surprising—and controversial.”

Withholding full judgment until he reads the full 181-page plan, the bestselling author of End Times-inspired political fiction said that Trump’s plan gave Israel almost everything they wanted, but was also “generous” to the Palestinians.

On that count, it may complicate domestic politics for Trump and Netanyahu alike. Though some Christian Zionists oppose a two-state solution, Rosenberg believes many evangelicals will be “enthusiastic.”

But Israel’s settler community “wants everything,” Rosenberg said.

More than 600,000 Israeli Jews live in settlements scattered across the West Bank and east Jerusalem. Their main political body has rejected the deal, as have a few Netanyahu allies who have called for immediate annexation.

“They are very angry, and Bibi could have a problem on his right,” he said. “He might now surprisingly have to make a deal in the center, with Gantz.”

Trump’s plan, previously delayed due to repeated Israeli elections that failed to secure a ruling majority coalition, now heads to its third re-run on March 2.

But Rosenberg believes the Deal of the Century had two primary goals, anticipating Palestinian rejection. One, to be a creative, credible, compassionate approach to peace—just in case.

And two, to appeal to Arab regional leaders who wish to make peace with Israel but are tied by the Palestinian issue. If Abbas rejects a good plan, they may proceed without him.

“Seeing three Arab Gulf leaders at the ceremony,” Rosenberg said, “he just might have succeeded in threading the needle.”

Perhaps Palestinians will see the promise of a state and economic development and reject their rejectionist leadership, he wonders. Their situation is sad, and perhaps divinely so.

“Palestinian leaders will huff and puff, but they look ridiculous and their people are suffering,” Rosenberg, an evangelical of Jewish descent, said.

“But as I read in the book of Exodus, I can’t help but wonder if God has just hardened Abbas’s heart.”

Not at all, according to Salim Munayer, head of the Jerusalem-based Musalaha reconciliation ministry. This past year, he has held many sessions discussing peace between Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

“From our discussions, the issues are clear: Israelis want security, and Palestinians want justice,” Munayer said. “No Palestinian leader can accept this deal, because it doesn’t meet our basic needs.”

East Jerusalem should be their capital, he said, but left unsettled is the question of Jewish settlers moving into Arab neighborhoods. Refugees deserve the right of return, but are left out of this proposal. And the Jordan Valley is essential for Palestinian population expansion, agricultural development, and vital water supply.

Israel already controls security along the border, it does not need to appropriate the land, Munayer said.

But beyond the details, the “Deal of the Century” lacks the moral framework to win Palestinian support. In successive steps over the past years to move the embassy to Jerusalem, cut humanitarian funding, and no longer consider settlements as occupied territory, the US has lost all trust as a moderator, he said.

“If one side humiliates the other, there can be no agreement,” Munayer said. “Israel is eating the pizza, while saying to the Palestinians, ‘Let’s negotiate slices.’”

This fits also into Israel’s domestic context, he said. The plan was released on the same day Netanyahu was indicted on corruption charges.

Real peace must come through grassroots reconciliation, and not be imposed from the top, Munayer said. But worse, Trump’s plan comes wholly from the outside.

Overall, he had little emotional response to the proposal—that came months earlier, when the US cut funding to Palestinian hospitals.

“I didn’t have a lot of expectations, it was no surprise,” Munayer said. “It used to be one-sided before, but never this extreme.”

Daoud Kuttab, a Palestinian journalist and secretary of the Jordan Evangelical Council in Amman, read the plan in full and said its contents and its rollout “sounded more like a surrender dictate than a peace plan.”

“The fact that of 13 million Palestinians, the Americans couldn’t find a single one to attend [the rollout] spoke volumes in its one-sidedness,” he told CT.

Kuttab most approves of the plan’s Gaza-West Bank tunnel, which would end Israel’s separation of the two territories. He most opposes its lack of autonomous borders. “Despite using the words Palestinian state, the plan gives Palestine no real independence and allows Israel control over borders, over the air and sea, and [Israeli security forces] can enter Palestine at any time they choose.”

“It is a surrender document that will lay the grounds for Palestinians to continue to live under Israeli discrimination,” he said. “It is a death to the two-state solution, and will do nothing to help the peace process. This is a formula for further violence and unrest.”

Hanna Massad, a Palestinian pastor who led Gaza Baptist Church for 12 years and returns regularly, said the plan is “unfair” and fails to meet either Palestinian “ambitions” or UN resolutions. It contains “no justice,” which for him means Jerusalem for a capital and a return to 1967 borders.

Massad still has the documents showing the land his family lost in Israel. “We keep it safe, so that at least one day we might receive compensation.”

“It breaks your heart to see the poverty and suffering of the people in Gaza,” he told CT. “As Palestinians, we have also done bad things against the Israelis. But because we are the weaker party, we suffer more.”

“My father told me he wished to see peace in his lifetime,” Massad said. “Now, I wonder if my children will see it.”

“We hope for fairness and justice for all sides,” he said. “But we hope only in the Lord.”

Gerald McDermott, Anglican Chair of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School who recently wroteThe New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel and the Land, said the plan is “a realistic opportunity for a two-state solution,” given its offer of “huge economic help and a Jerusalem capital.”

He is not surprised by Abbas’s rejection, but instead is struck by regional reaction. “For the first time, there is considerable Arab support for an American-initiated deal,” he said, naming the UAE, Oman, Bahrain, and Egypt. “All of these states are tired of Palestinian rejectionism.”

“Like any political compromise, it will cause pain on all sides,” McDermott told CT. “Netanyahu, for example, is suffering major criticism from the Israeli right.”

However, he said, “There is no theological reason why Israel cannot compromise with Arabs. Both Abraham and Isaac did.”

Yohanna Katanacho, a Palestinian pastor and academic dean at Nazareth Evangelical College, said it doesn’t take a “prophet” to know Trump’s plan is “destined to failure.”

“Trump is trying to address a difficult problem but he is not addressing it from the perspective of humility,” he wrote for Come and See, a Nazareth-based Christian website. “Such humility does not ignore UN resolutions, Palestinian input, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and justice.”

Source: Christianity Today

All Content & Images are provided by the acknowledged source