|Contents by Subject||
Contents in Alphabetical Order
From: Jonathan Tillotson <email@example.com>
Re: Brit-Am Now no. 1302
#4. Identification must precede Rectification
What Caused the Division? Whose Fault Was it?
The question of Ephraim's self-awareness, or lack of, is interesting.
I wanted to run past you some ideas about why Ephraim may have resistance to accepting his identity. I am British so may only be speaking words relevant to Britain.
Speaking personally as an Englishman I very much feel my own and my country's connection with ancient Israel, just as many have in the past, and many still do.
However, maybe some people, as well as I, can sometimes find themselves thinking along these lines: " But a feeling is not a fact. How can I be sure I am not delusional or engaged in wishful thinking? Moreover, even though the evidence may seem compelling as laid out in your books and the other texts of the Anglo-Israelite tradition, other academics, both religious and secular, have always disputed this identity message and deride such conclusions. If I am not an expert in these historical matters, who am I to conclude that mainstream experts are wrong and you are right?" While this hesitancy (which is rather a feature of the Anglo-saxon, cautious, empirically minded character I suggest) may not persuade them to abandon the Brit-am perspective entirely, perhaps it may persuade them to be rather cautious in talking about it, or acting upon it. Frankly they are embarrassed about the possibility of being wrong.
In addition, for many this felt connection with Israel has been understood more metaphorically or spiritually I think, as opposed to literally, or racially. As the thinking would go: Just as ancient Israel was God's chosen nation, so Britain (for example) was or is now (so some may have thought up to the 19th century, anyway) God's new chosen nation. So definitions need to be clarified about what a connection to Israel actually means.
Besides that, the notion of a literal Anglo-Saxon-Celtic descent and connection with physical Ancient Israel also has to contend with a question raised by Replacement Theology, namely: Well, even if it's true, so what? As the argument might go: "Old Israel has been abandoned by God for having rejected Jesus. The "Church" is now Israel, so even if my physical ancestry is Israelite, so what? What matters is my soul in the next life, etc." I think this way of thinking may also explain many Ephraimite Christians' lack of enthusiasm even in the midst of much proof etc. The question is not considrered relevant because in the context of much, especially Catholic, Theology, the role of Israel, ethnically understood, is no longer deemed important.
Added to this is the role played by contemporary aversions to attaching any kind of significiance to racial issues per se (especially if they relate to the Caucasian races). Since Hitler's sinister and evil effect upon racial considerations in general, a certain dogmatic silence about racial issues has determined the climate of thought in the West's own self-reflections - with the caveat, however, that we are allowed and encouraged to feel ashamed of ourselves. That every race other than the Caucasian is allowed both to feel proud of its own race, and to be racist towards other races, of course, does not seem to be relevant, but anyway. In any case, this climate of 'anti-racial consciousness' in the West, as it were, I think, has also made it less likely that Ephraimites will feel comfortable even considering that there is anything about their ancestry that makes them in any way special or important. Perhaps this feeling is less acute in America, which is still a pre-eminent power in the world than it is in Britain, which has declined from its former position rather dramatically.
But beyond this, is a far wider and deeper issue. Namely that most people in Britain are now largely indifferent, if not hostile to Religion and to God altogether. Since this is so, one can hardly expect them, until this situation is altered, to take even the Abrahamic paradigm of spirituality seriously, let alone the particular reading here articulated regarding their ancient Biblical identity.
Anyway those were just some thoughts I've had. I felt they needed such a long expression.
This says that believers in the Christian Messiah are spiritually
the "New Israel".
A modified version of this notion speaks of "Two Houses" with Christian "believers" being chosen alongside Judah.
We on the other hand speak of physical ancestry with belief playing a subsidiary role.
The idea of physical ancestry would seem to some Christian believers to be irrelevant and distracting.
What is more it might threaten to impose unwanted distinctions amongst believers with those who claim to be of physical descent from Israel opposed to they who are indifferent or even hostile to the notion.
This is a problem for Christians to work out on their own.
Brit-Am tries to avoid theological issues especially concerning other faiths.
Our role is to present the truth as we understand it.
Pleased with what you read?