we have to come out with a product that we feel both on the journalism side and those who watch the senate can give a big wet kiss to the senate. but you also have to be able to watch an it and say we didn't d hatchet job, either. >> "the senate: conflict and compromise" on sunday night on c-span q & a. next, samuel goldman discusses christian zionism in america which he defines that he believes christians have a responsibility to put some portion of the state in the biblical holy land. he's also author of "god's country." this is an hour and a half. >> i want to thank you all, to welcome you to this session of the washington history seminar

historical perspectives on international and national affairs. my name is eric arnesen from george washington university. i am the co-chair of this seminar. my other co-chair is unable to join us. some of you know, some of you do not know this is a seminar that's been going on for a number of years now. it is the collaborative effort of two organizations. the national history center, which is part of the american historical association, and the woodrow wilson international center for scholars and its history and public policy program. behind the scenes we have two particular individuals who every week work very hard to make sure that this seminar comes off with as little difficulty as possible, and amanda perry from the national history center and pierce decker from the wilson center. on the back and on the side are the folks who do the difficult

work of organizing logistics and making sure that this seminar comes off week after week. the seminar is reliant upon the generosity of its friends. among institutional supporters we have the department of history at the george washington university and a number of anonymous donors. and as i say, every single week, please feel free to join their ranks at your earliest possible convenience. we're very pleased to have with us today roger lewis, who is the founder of this seminar just under a decade ago as well as dane kennedy, the current director of the national history center. if you have one of these devices, and i'm guessing every single person in this room does, let's see here, make sure it's in the off or silent position. they just tend to go off at exactly the wrong moment because there is never a right moment at

any given time. we would appreciate if you would turn your phone to silent. it's my distinct pleasure to welcome our speaker today, samuel goldman, who is a colleague of mine at george washington university where he is an assistant professor of political science and he's the director of not just one, but two, major initiatives, the politics and values program as well as he's the executive director of the lobe institute for religious freedom. before coming to ghw, he was a fellow of religion and politics at princeton. in addition to his new book "god's country," he is in america about which he is speaking today. he has published on a number of figures. professor goldman also serves as the literary editor of "modern age: a conservative review" and

his writings which i promise you are really very engaging and have appeared in such outlets as the "new york times," the "wall street journal," national review. the first thing is the jewish review of books and many other publications. now he will be speaking to us on his new project, his new book, "god's country: christian zionism in america." >> well, thank you, eric. i should say eric is generous enough to describe me as his colleague. what he didn't mention is that he is one of the deans at the george washington university and is there for my boss. so i have only nice things to say about him and about the administration of the wonderful university that is kind enough to employ me approximate. >> i also want to thank the wil

soer wilson center and the national history center for their generous invitation. as eric said in his introduction, i am not, in fact, trained as an historian, and i always address audiences composed of historians with the greatest trepidation. historians tend to ask very difficult questions which i am only sometimes prepared to answer. but i take comfort in these challenges in a story that's told of the french social theorist fru cea u. it was said that he would present the same paper at the history seminar and the philosophy seminar. when historians raised objections about his use of sources or the archives he had

visited, he would say, gentlemen, i am a philosopher and these are not my concerns. and then geld to the if i lot if i center in october. they would raise questions about the definition rnl a thoirs yan and i cannot be held to your rigorous standard. ment -- plead membership in a different scholarly position, in fact, a political theory. i think i will say something in my remarks this afternoon about why i think this investigation of christian zionism is important for political theory as well as for religious and political history.

to introduce the topic, i'll ask you to think back to last january, which many of us think about as a lifetime ago, not merely nine months. when vice president mike pence, whose photograph i noticed in the lobby outside this room, delivered an address at the conessa, israel's parliament, making an official announcement of trump's decision to move the united states embassy from tel aviv where it has been located in, i believe, three different buildin buildings. since the establishment of israel in 1948 to jerusalem, a decision that had actually been made by congress quite a number of years ago but had been deferred by a series of both democratic and republican administrations.

pence's speech was notable for its symbolism as well as for the specific occasion and its diplomatic significance. pence, as no doubt many of you know, is not only vice president but also a conservative evangelical christian, a group that here in the united states has been outspoken in its support of the jewish state. and pence's remarks reflected that enthusiasm. more than just a recitation of diplomatic cliches about friendships between peoples, the speech drew a close parallel between america or the united states or the american people and the people of israel, a parallel that goes back to the very beginnings of european settlement of this continent. and i want to quote a passage.

here's what pence said. in the story of the jews, we have always seen the story of america. it is the story of an exodus, a journey from persecution to freedom, a story that shows the power of faith and the promise of hope. my country's very first settlers also saw themselves as pilgrims sent by providence to build a new promised land. the songs and stories of the people of israel were their anthems and they faithfully taught them to their children and do to this day. and our foirnds, as others have said, turned to their bible. so pence here is suggesting that the connection between the united states and its ter sdpoer the people and land of israel

beginning with the puritans but also expressed in the politics of the founding. pence then moved from history to theology and perhaps even to prophecy. he proclaimed, quote, it was the faith of the jewish people that gathered the scattered fragments of a people and made them whole again. that took the language of the bible and the landscape of the psalms and made them live again. i know this is a highly educated audience so i'll pose a pop quiz. would anybody venture to name the audience to which pence was alluding? don't be shy.

any guesses? okay. well, i won't torment you any longer. it is chapter 37 of the book of ezekiel which is often described as the vision of the dry bones bones. in this vision, the prophet sees himself standing in a valley full of dry, human bones. and before mipds approximate. and then god reveals the people to the moment of exile and promises to resurrect them and bring them back to the land of israel. i learned in giving these talks it's always good to bring a

bible wum bible. i'll just read a few sentences of the prophecy to you. this is actually the king james version. in fact tfr, it was not the kin james but an earlier bible translated into english that was especially important in inspiring the religious and political movements that i call scla the protozionist or what some call christian restoration themes. anyway, here is what god says to ezekiel. then he said unto me, son of man, these bones are the whole house of israel.

behold, they say our bones are dried and our hope is lost. we are cut off for our parts. therefore, prophecy, and say into them, thus sayeth the lord god, my people. i will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves and bring you to the land of israel when i have opened up my grave and come out of the grave, and i shall place you unt untilly -- until i opened it. it was the people who made it whole again that took the language of the bible, the magic of the songs, and made them live

again. we know, of course, that important public officials like vice president pence not. so when i read these words in the newspaper, i became curious about who might have composed them or what inspired them. i believe they came from the vice president's staff. but it did turn out that portions of the speech were rather closely based on some statements by rabbi lord jonathan sachs. a great jrew and friend of christians in the united kingdom and israel. i know that in writing the passages that then reappeared approxima with permission, i should say,

thts not a face of flag -- this is not a face of historical content in mind. here i must also indulge myself in a moment of self-promotion and say that the speech might have been further improved if vice president pence or his staff had read my book, which you see here. because this book is, so far as i know, historically accessible to readers study of america's interest in, and at times obsession, with the idea of a jewish state. an obsession that, as pence suggests, really does go all the way back to the puritans.

one minor correction. the puritans and the pilgrims are not exactly the same people, and they looked on settlers of new england as pilgrims. but all that to one side. what i try to show during this book of christian zionism as the idea that christians have a religious responsibility to promote, support or protect a jewish state in some portion of the biblical holy land. i say this as an arbitrary definition. that's not entirety purchase of the book is to justify the gs

r r reality. if you're interested, we can talk in the q & a about the terms of those definitions and their advantages and disadvantages. this is the one i use because they're spernlly rather loose whachlt toipt show is remembe y rememberly. it is suggested that an evangelical bible associated with figures like jerry falwell. jerry falwell and the so-called ma frl. between conservative prot he is

stants but they didn't invent these ideas. in fact, they are considerably older. well, if you are familiar with some of the literature on this topic, you might find a somewhat different answer, which is that they emanate from the influence of jonathan darby who is considered the symptomatizer if not the inventor of pre-millennial disp dispensationalism. broadly speaking, and i know a caveat is in order.

there are different that have a different take on this, but dispensation ism are divided into periods between 3:00 and 9:00, although seven is the most numerabl er numerable and will conclude with the return of the jewish people to the biblical promised land, and that either immediately after or perhaps in conjunction with this return, christ will return in person to defeat his enemies and establish the millennial kingdom that the next phase of history, which will last for another thousand years

of peace and harmony until satan escapes from his bonds, raises an army and is then defeated and finally the new heavens and new earth of which the book of revelation speak come into existence. now, if you are familiar with this school of thought, it can be exciting and clear for those that it is not prepared for, but this occurs in the apocalyptic literature typified by the so-called left behind or in time series of novels which also have produced spinoff movies and tell-alls and also work as the

1970's best seller "the late, great planet earth" by hal lindsey. returning to the influence of darby, yes, it's true that darby popularized this particular scheme of interpretation and of historical reasoning. in that respect, he is an important figure in the development of christian zionism. but he was also drawing on much more deeply rooted arguments and assumptions. and these arguments and assumptions were, in my opinion, or at least so i argue, particularly deeply rooted here in the united states. in the 19th century and even into the early 20th century, there was an active christian zionist movement in britain which attracted supporters from

elements of the church of england and also some of the dissenting churches but is nowadays, i think, virtually a dead letter and has been since world war ii. that isn't the case in america, and i think one of the reasons that isn't the case is these specific arguments in support of christian zionist conclusions echoed or were compatible with religious ideas that many americans already accepted. so in short, darby was successful as a systemizer and indirectly as a popularizer not because he was saying anything very new, but because he was putting together and articulating in an especially effective way ideas that many american christians already possessed. so where, then, did these ideas come from? well, as vice president pence

indicated, it seems to be the product of this peculiar analogy which obsessed the puritans and was later woven into the fabric of the american civil religion. this is the idea that the story of america or the american people in some way mirrors or follows the story of the biblical israel. each story begins with tyranny and persecution. it's then followed by an exodus that leads to a period of wandering in the wilderness. and then finally the chosen people is allowed to enter the promised land where it establishes a mighty state with god's help. one nation under god, as in the

pledge of allegiance. this interpreted analogy of american biblical religion as a chosen religion or what is pejoratively known as replacement theology in which american christians take over from the biblical israel or from the jewish people their role as the elect nation and then north america or the united states becomes kind of a second zion or new promised land. and this imaginenat virks trkim ativ e replacement holds its

place as the biblical replacement did many years ago. you can attribute everything from the civil war to the cold war struggle against communism to this vision of american national destiny. i should say that i don't think that interpretation, which in addition to tuveson, was popularized by perry miller and. his students, was entirely wrong. it certainly finds expression in the rhetoric of presidents, including abraham lincoln, john f. kennedy, some of whose staff were certainly reading miller if he wasn't reading also lord saxon and many use metaphors that are derooifd from of the.

so this is a real current in our national theological, political imagination. but there is another version which is a bit more complicated and this is the one on which i focus in the book. in this story, americans of the united states do not replace the people of land and israel, the people in the land of israel in god's favor. instead they're called by god to help realize the original promise or the original covenant of god with the jewish people, with the descendants of abraham, which is reflected in many prophecies like that of the dry bones that i quoted at the beginning of my talk. and that means that americans

are called or are elected or are chosen but are called to sort of a subsidiary role in supporting, promoting or assisting the establishment of a jewish state in, again, some part of the biblical land of promise. in a word, christian zionism. so this is the interpretation of the hebraic account of human destiny that i emphasize in the book. it turns out, as i've suggested, that this way of thinking goes back a long time. even farther, actually, than the international zionist movement associated with theodore hertzel which was organized only at the end of the 19th century. i'll mention just a few major figures in this tradition

beginning with woodrow wilson himself, since we are here at the wilson center, and who told rabbi stephen s. wise, the american zionist leader, that he as a son of the mass, that is to say, as the son of a presbyterian minister was delighted and honored that he should play a central role in the restoration of the jewish people, according to wise, at least. i'm relying on the accuracy of his account. wilson said this after he determined that he and his administration would affirm and support the british balfour declaration in 2014. i don't think wilson was a christian zionist in any deep religious sense, but i think he was certainly aware of these ideas and of this language.

it seems to have played some role in his decision to lend the diplomatic support of the united states to the zionist cause. more centrally, christian zionism in america includes figures like william e. blackstone, who called himself god's errand boy, and in 1891 came to washington and rang the doorbell just down the street on pennsylvania avenue to present a petition to president benjamin harrison calling for american influence to be used to establish a jewish state. now, blackstone was a follower of darby, if not a somewhat unorthodox one. you could attribute his actions to darby's influence, but what's really striking about the so-called blackstone memorial,

as this petition was known, is the many dozens of signatures that it carries from prominent individuals, including the then-speaker of the house of representatives, the then-chief justice of the supreme court, j.p. morgan, john d. rockefeller sr., the editors of dozens of oth other. these were not people who are followers of darbily, yet they were tlog put their name with this cause. there is word th another name is george bush, not the president but rather one of their ancestors, who is a professor of hebrew in the

middle of the 19th century and wrote a book on the prophecy of ezekiel, which i quoted, and argued for a political representation of the prophecies and the fulfillment of the prophecy is work to be carried out by states acting in their political capacity. that's the words he uses. to say bill economic. it's not certainly a miracle dmor oto be reached by a political goal. another one is elias budenow, who was an aide to george washington as well as president of the continental congress.

he was a member of the american bible society, and in 1916, he asked, who knows? but the lord has fliftd -- decided to have more people, but not more christians. i klz kly. i mention him in the skbook on here because i think he's often misinterpret misinterpreted which has become known as the first great awakening which might begin in america, and some of his language suggests that he believed america itself was m t

admitted, it was clear he thought the millennial age might begin in america, but it would culminate in jeff use them. one more example, the christian zionist tradition includes crease and published a series of books based on ser momons he ha preached concerning inevitable use of his land with participation. maverick, of course, disagreed

with his father-in-law john cotton, namesake of mather's son, cotton mather. cotton actually proposed that england and possibly new england would be directly involved sooner rather than later in the transportation of the jewish people to the biblical promised land. he says that the jews will be carried by some willing nation r. by some willing nation, he means his own, on camels and dromedaries. mather agreed in principal, but he felt the time was not pure tan religious leaders, you find the same type of claims,

references to the same techs and the -- let me conclude by making observations or at least suggestions about the significance of all of this. it's my opinion that until very recently, when there has been a significant upsurge of scholarship on this topic, including some really excellent studi studies, this history was simply unknown. it had been simply forgotten. that's partly because of broader trends in the discipline of history but also because i think of the way that christian zionism was brought to the

attention of the non-christian public by evangelical people. it is self-effacing historically and that comes through dialect in the bible. there is very little relation between theological fellows and religious areas. it's all there if you look. i think a lot of readers, both believers and non-believers, took this suggestion very critically. they said, oh, yeah, however ho

i hope that i can contribute something to the study of religious american history study here. but i also think there is an implication for american foreign poli policy. the implication is that whatever your views on these questions and the appropriate disposition of territory in the middle east or the relationship between the united states and the state of israel, i don't think we can understand the connection between these countries without taking this history into account. so the united states and israel are sometimes. as far as i can teshlgs it was president kennedy who first actually used that if.

in my judgment, the relationship between these two countries can't be anything but special, for good or for will. ment calls for the united states to treat israel like a normal. i'm not misplaced because i see rarmd, the story of what american christians have often called the holy land is in a refrakted way part of the american stow. it's simply not possible, at least as long as the bible continues to be red and as long as these die logical conditions continue. think of thely. belgi

belgium. finally, i think there is a contribution here to the study of political theory or the history of political thought. and here i'll try to justify my own intervention in conversations for which i have no professional credentials to contribute. and that is an attempt to understand the way texts and language and concepts constitute a people's understanding of itself and influence its behavior. in this case it is the story of the biblical israel, and there are been particular elements of this story that have been important in america and less important elsewhere. there are other sources and other models.

but what i think christian zionism has done is provide a kind of common language, or until fairly recently, common language for thinking not only about international politics but also about domestic politics being for the american nrn. it can't be found in the canonical works by great if i lossers. part of the project for me is that although i had been trained in reading books by cont or hagel and locke and trying to reconstruct a reaction, this process allowed me to reach a

wide variety of sources, ranging from newspaper accounts and public policy papers to sermons and program. i discuss them in a chapter on what i would call the philno zionist or pro zionist for the 1950s and '6 0s, as well as more system works as political thought. i did this because i think it's even in that range that most political thinking. quotation marks, that we actually conduct our final

conversations. and fimly, bringing them to this fin finally a controversial statement of controversial issues of public policy that are unfortunately bound up in the topic. my point here is not to convince anyone to become a christian zionist. i am not a christian myself, and although i consider myself a supporter of the state of israel many. many it's important to me to be as transparent as i can about who i am and where i come from, bumt who have quite different

views, and more cultural background to engage in discussion and disagreement without expecting each other of speaking in code or if obtaining secret plants p. remember. thank you very much i was told that the rest of the time should be devoted to questions and that is what we'll do. >> our ground rules are simple. wait to be called upon. wait for the microphone to reach you. it's very important. our good frernlds tr -- friends

are here. >> the microphone is appearing behind you right now. >> it makes it interesting -- >> you are? >> steve williams at vanderbilt university. to the division of people who are christian zionists, to what degree with you consider christian buy an r rmt i assume they're defending israel no fwhimplt flt. is there many a zionism that would support settlements and yet you would definitely pick zit onnist but would be more

supportive of not always supporting the state of policy use. >> yeah, so just to ensure that everyone heard the question, i was asked first about the relationship between christian zionism and anti-semitism. and second about the nature of christian zionists' commitment to israel. are they really for israel in every case or no daylight test they sometimes say. that really is an interesting issue and one i pay a considerable amount of attention in the book. and part of the puzzle here is figuring out what you mean by anti-semitism. on the one hand, i think that christian zionists are almost, by definition, phyllo-hebraic. you cannot be a christian

scienti scientist, at least the way i've described, unless there is something important in the jewish people and the land of israel and the literacy, but being phyllo-habriac is not the sames being one of the jews. it has been the distance between the behavior that christion zionists expected of jews and the sub-jews. of course, jews should want to be restored to the land of israel because of its prophecy, so why don't they want that?

and not just more recent christian zionists but even mather himself became quite frustrated when they discovered that many, and perhaps most jews, they encountered in america really had no interest of going anywhere and were, in fact, quite powerfully attracted to the idea of america as a new zion. another challenge, i think, for christian zionists, this was particularly shocking to william blackson, whom i mentioned, that he expected the jewish support for sdpzionism to come from orthodox jews. he was apparently unaware that jewish orthodoxy has the idea of

no return to the proxy in the final age. that was a puzzle for him. it was easy for blackson to understand why secular jews might not embrace zionism. because in his view, they were really the worst sort of people. they were neither christian nor jewish, they were nothing, and were, therefore, corrupt and not worth dealing with. but he was concerned about the orthod orthodox. and so he turned to his bible as christian zionists tend to do, and he was looking through the prophecies, and he found in one of the minor prophets zefeniah, a passage where god says through the prophet, gather yourself together, oh nation that hath no shame. that's how it's translated in

the john nelson darby version of the bible, a nation that hath no shame. and he said, okay, well, what this is suggesting is that the jews will be brought together in a condition of unbelief and will be restored even though they don't know that's what's happening to them. and finally, in the last days, christ will reveal himself and they will either recognize that he is the promised messiah or they will die. and that's the solution that blackstone arrived at. now, that did not impede blackston himself from conducting pretty friendly and successful relationships with american jews of a variety of religious positions. but in the 1930s and 1940s, there is a darker side of this idea which holds that the

persecution followed by the genocide of jews in europe is part of god's plan. to drive them out of the places of exile and toward their real home. and in that sense, that hitler is unwitt ii nrk irkunwittingly. is that anti-semitism? only in a strained sense because there is always the commitment to significance and continuation of the jewish people, at least until the last days. but that does not always translate to great understanding or empathy for actual jews. and one of the more heartening developments in christian zionism in the last 20 or 30 years have been attempts by christian zionists to learn more

about the real jewish experience, both the jewish experience in the state of israel which, as we know, is a modern society in which people have jobs and do stuff, it's not just a collection of sites for biblical tourism, but also in the united states and other communities. so that's the answer to the first question. the second is it depends what period you're talking about. since the 1970s and '80s, christian zionism has become narrower and, as one might say, more uncritically supportive of israel. never entirely uncritical. if you read even remarks by falwell or pat robertson or even john hagey, they would say we're

not giving israel a bad check. that never seems quite to happen. but there is an older tradition of liberal protestant zionism which is represented by raeinhod neber. he was trying to create a kind of zionism that was th theoretically more serious. again, in a transparency of any own views, i wish every success to some friends and colleagues of mine who are trying to revively an exile of christian

zionism as opposed to the more rigorously scatterlogical form that's become familiar. >> let me offer a follow-up question or so. i'm interested in interested in politicians responses to christian zionism. one of the early sticking points was they may like jews, but there needs to be a conversion first. they have to. accept christ and then the millennium will follow. or not depending on whichever flavor or variant of this we're talking about. so that sdunl go over very well. you need to convert. if you could talk about the response that these politicians and/or zionist figures had had, i would appreciate it.

the second issue or question that i have has to do with what's driving what. and for the more modern period, the conversion of the new right and christian zionism and a staunch pro israel stance seems to be going hand in hand. i read 40 years ago and it's a trip. i should say that's a feat because it's suggested in the book that the world may end in 1988. so we're already 30 years past the expiration date. >> i'm glad that's the case otherwise we wouldn't have this seminar, but in the reading of various texts, you can draw many conclusions and the book of revelations is confusing and it doesn't lead to any single interpretation just like the rest of the bible doesn't. so i'm wondering with -- what is driving the new right and its relationship to christian

zionism and israel. is it the right part of it that is making them less and less critical or is it still fundamentally a variant of religious interpretation that leads them to that position? but it doesn't necessarily have to do that. >> so the first question was about the interaction or relation of israelis and especially iz yaly public officials to christian zionism. i'll take this opportunity to plug a wonderful forthcoming book by the historian on this very subject. we have the good fortune of sponsoring a man script workshop for the book and it will be out soon. and dan, who reads and speaks hebrew and spent a lot of time in israel knows a lot about

that. and i think there are really two phases. bb, before beggen and ab, after beggen. before beggen the general answer is that israeli officials had very little understanding of american religious movements. on the one hand, they were very tou touchy about process them ta sooigs and there was tension in the 1950s and '60s between american evangelicals and israel concerning some of the restrictions that the state then maintained. there was a famous incident in which billy graham was denied

use of an arow na for his crusade because public process thighation was prohibited. in this period, american christians, particularly in the evangelical and n neofundamentalists knew very little about israel. so they were interdependent in some ways. we often forget now that israel was a very poor country that depended heavily on tourism. and some of the earliest contacts, organized contacts between the state of israel and american christians are actually through the ministry of tourism. because there was a considerable amount of money at stake in pill grammages and holy land tours. but they were speaking past each other for the most part until

beggen. the one possible exception is david, who was although secular in his own belief was much more biblical in his rhetoric and his conception of the state that many of the other early israeli leaders, and for that reason christian zionists were fond of quoting him. in 1971, not too long before his death, he spoke at a conference on prophesy and held in jerusalem. in his very brief and mostly pro forma remarks, he alludes to some of these texts. it's my impression that even then he didn't know exactly who

heez these people were or what they wanted. he was a statesman and showed up where he wanted and said his peace. that began to change in the 1970s. especially after the government took power. it was much more aware of the possibility of cultivating a larger source of political support in the united states than the jewish community, which is significant and influential, but there aren't that many people, that aren't that many votes. beggen and some of his advisers realize that there was the possibility for an alliance there. and i open one of the sections of my book with an account of a

meeting held between beggen in 1981 opposite the white house which they emerge shaking hands and proclaiming an eternal bond between more than christians and the state of israel. and since then, the relationship has been much more organized and intentional. that said, there is at least potentially an instrumental character because of the fundamental religious difference here. and i think the attitude of israelis and jews who encourage closer relations between the state of israel and christians is you take your support where you can find it. it doesn't matter what people expect to happen at the end

time. when the the mosiah arrives, we'll ask whether it's his first or second visit. even though at this point most of the organizations have rejected, we do not seek to convert jews as jews, maybe there will be some kind of fulfillment. we don't really know, but for the moment, we are not pursuing jews. and billy graham was influential in making that change after his holy land tour of 1963. but, nevertheless, the back of their minds has to be the idea that judism is not false. and many reject the idea of conversion because they don't see it as being separate or different, but incomplete.

and that the completion of judism which means the completion of god's plan for the human race is the recognition of the jewish people of the people of israel that jesus was the promised mosiah. so in polite circles, you don't talk about that. >> microphone is is coming. >> i'd like you to address the how much of the territory of american christian itty does it occupy? what portion would you guess or is known of christians is made up of christian zionists. and that then i have a question

about whether it exists in other countries. which is a fairly important question given nor emphasis on the united states and how there's such an affinity between our two kinds of zionism. finally this probably has something to do with anti-semitism. certainly, there's still plenty of christians who were antisemimites although that portion may be dropping. would you argue the people are probably not christian zionists? >> so let me try to take it the questions in reis verse order. first about. semitism, what i regard as a sincere attempt to overcome the legacy of anti-semitism is is part of the motivation for a great deal of christian zionism.

and john hagueyhaguey, of chris ewe thenitised for israel, which claims over a million members. so that gives you some idea of the scale. describes in many of his books how he was led to his belief in a christian obligation to jews and israel as he became aware of the christian anti-semitism. there's no reason to doubt that in his case or others. so i think christian zionists are probably less likely to be antisemimites. as for the extent, it's difficult to tell. one of the problems in the study of religion among political scientists, is that it's hard to

poll these questions because you don't know exact ly what people mean when they answer them. there's some reason to think that in many cases, people never really thought about it, but given the set of questions, they will pick an answer. so i hesitate to make any definitive claim, but i can tell you what polls show. which is a considerable maim majority express what i would call christian zionist sentiments. they believe god promised the land of israel. that's not defined in the question. you don't know quite what they mean. that god promised the land of z israel to the jewish people. those numbers are are much lower in most other christian denominations. i think about 50/50 among

catholics. and lower than that in the liberal or main line protestant denominations. one of the interesting test cases and the religion scholar is the views of african-american property sfatandpoints baa they have many of the same commitments as evangelicals, but they are less likely to express a christian zionist view. this gets to eric's question about motive. but we are still talking about millions and millions of people in the united states. that leads to the last question or really the first that you asked about christian zionism elsewhere. and in answer, i would say that

christian zionism is not dying out in the united states. but it's certainly ageing. and again, studies show that younger people are much more inclined to declare themselves nones, having no religious affiliation, than they are their parents and grandparents and along with that i think goes less interest in christian zionism. at the same time it's in africa and south america. particularly the efforts of pentecostal churches and communities who have in really interesting ways exported some

of these christian zionist ideas from america to christian communities in south america, especially brazil, but also in africa. i'll just quickly wrap up because this connects to one of eric's questions. that's why the israel foreign ministry is especially interested in south america and africa these days. because as support for the state of israel wanes in traditionally christian countries in europe, they recognize as a result of these movements new sources of support in the third world or global south or whatever stylizeden term you prefer. >> right here. >> the stay to play with the christian zionists in 1948.

>> in 1948 the most prominent and influential christian zionist, although they didn't quite use that term. they used pro zionist were l liberal property stanlts. they were the recognized leader. if gathering somewhat like this, you were to ask in the late '40s, who was a crihristian who supports the state of israel or zionism, it would have been a politically and theologically liberal christian who would have co come to mind. some of his allies worked closely with the various in america to marshal support for

zionism and the historian kaitlyn kernan wrote a book about that. that these to the movement were not just letter head organizations. they did have real influence and spontaneous support. at the same time, there was a culture of what at that time would have been called probably fundamentalist christians and were begin ining after after 19 with the establish. ments of the national association of evangelicals to call themselves evangelical christians who were politically much more conservative, who were much more biblical in their approach to these issues.

opposed a philosophically grounded christian support for israel. and they were almost unnoticed at the time. and as late as the 1967 war when the jewish committee was conducting surveys of christian opinion to try to gauge attitudes towards israel, they almost ignored conservative protestants or fundamentalists, who then emerged in the 1970s as a far more numerous constituency for christian b zionism. and i think this goes to the question of causation, '67 was the pivotal year there.

not only because the state of israel and the capture of the old city from jordan appeared vividly to fulfillen ancient process sits, which was appealing to protestants, but also because. main line took a sharp left turn a the this point. and liberal property stanlt attitudes towards the state of israel began to mirror protestant attitudes about the vietnam war and his allies who were pro zionists began to be accused of hypocrisy by many of their allies in the anti-war movement at home. he was active in clergy and concerned about vietnam. i never quite get that right. he was accused of dividing the united front among the religious

left against war. so at the moment in 196, conservative christians are moving right politically while theologically liberal christians are moving left politically. but that didn't happen until fairly late. there's this forgotten tradition of liberal protestant or main line protestant zionism. >> the gentleman in the blue shirt. microphone is coming your way right there in the middle. >> thank you, professor. i was the director of the middle east of the world council of churches for 13 years. i dined and wined with theologians mainly from the protestant background, but we also had orthodox and other

christian groups. it is my experience that there is a drift from the christian fundamentalist position in the main line. you call them liberal and you call them leftist. they are main line. they looked at christians as a message of christ that stresses equality and left foot of all people and have trouble with dealing with the concept of chosen people. so i also in my forecacapacity secretary of the middle east, i had a lot of contact with jewish christian groups who came to my desk for dialogue. it was very appreciative of the christian muslim and jewish dialogue in the world council of churches. they are amused and embarrassed by. the christian zionist ideology.

i'm sorry to say that. so i'm not sure that christian zionism is providing security for israel. in the long run, you have 6 million pal still yans between the river and the sea being occupied and oppressed by the jewish state. so so to call the main line christians who support israel but are discomforted with the occupation and with the justification that comes from traditional theology, in fact, some christian theologians see a similarity between them and islam who want to change the whole architecture of the middle

east with a very strong jewish state that has no tolerance for existence. so this i represent and i would like c-span b to address that. >> i'm not sure to what extent it was a statement to be acknowledged or a question, but thr a couple of points that are certainly important and worth addressing. first, concerning the embarrassment of many liberal or main line or as they would have called them before world war ii modernist protestants is real. and despite his support for the state of israel, support that went far beyond in many cases the official zionist line on questions of territory and sovereignty, says this expolice

sicily. he wrote a piece in the new republic, which a the this point really was a left wing magazine in 1957, called our state and the state of israel. he proclaims himself em barsed. i'm embarrassed by. a justification for the state of israel. so that certainly true and that embarrassment was one of the motives for seeking different grounds for his zionism or pro zionism. but it must be said and this connects it to earlier question about numbers that at least in the united states the main line denominations really are dying out. and they have become extraordinarily top heavy. they have very powerful institutions, but they don't have a lot of people in the

pews. part of the reason that american christianity speaking broadly has taken a right turn is simply that main line churches, main line crust yan denominations haven't reproduced themselves. and the political center of gravity has shifted to where the communities are and ultimately where the votes are. as for the term main line, the reason i don't like that term is it wasn't actually coined until the late '50s, which was a time at which probably what was meant was beginning the decline that i'm describing so i tend to avoid it. the reason i say liberal is not because i mean politically, but because they were theologically liberal. that's sort of a conventional

term in religious history and it's no innovation of mine. back here and then we can move forward. >> my question is the offer of calling trump on the one hand and he always have to defend himself by telling people that his daughter is a jewish, but on the other hand these christian zionists find refugee in trump's company and claim that the strongest order of israel and those leftist i would call them mainstream, these people are just selfish and with trump just for political gain and nothing else and are empowered just because the black president in

eight years. and other countries in pakistan you have very nationalists who were like trump who was straight forward and up front and people elected him because of corruption, because pakistan was ruled by all political international thieves and cou country has become very these people just take advantage of many people say they take advantage of that corrupt environment. trump took advantage of people's hatred against a black president. would you put some light on this? >> i can't comment on the comparison to pakistan about which i really know very little. . and i simply don't think it's true. so i don't think that that is an

example of hypocrisy. what certainly is is true is that trump has not shown himself in his personal conduct to be a representative of the moral practices that conservative christians tend to endorse. there maybe there's a more serious accusation on their part. but i wrote an op-ed about this for "the new york times" last spring, there's a long tradition, which goes back to the bible of thinking about paigen rulers as god's instrument for the fulfillment of his plan for the people of israel and. ultimately for the human race. so in trump's case, the

comparison is drawn to cyrus, to the persian king, who was responsible to some degree for the return of jews to jerusalem during the so-called babylonian captivity. he actually was -- i won't get into the chronology. this is important if you have to figure out hong the periods are, but cyrus is the symbol of that. trump has been compared to cyrus both in israel and in the united states. and responding to these comparisons, somebody wrote a piece for the website that said isn't this crazy. isn't this a reflection of american evangelicalism, sort of

religious fundamentalism. but it's nothing new. that i found was in the 19 1790s. to say about as long as there have been presidents. the new jersey minister named david austin suggested that president john adams might support a return of the world's jews to what was then palestine. and the congregation was in elizabeth, new jersey. probably attended his sermons or familiar with his ideas. so again, this is an example of the way in which the stories and the sets of images and metaphors are very deeply intertwined and

have been for a long time. it's not because of trump. it's not because of obama. it's not because of billy graham. >> is christian zionism believe in a two-state solution? >> i don't think christian zionism requires any conclusion one way or the other. there are christian zionists who believe in a two-state solution. there are those that do not. the reason i say in my definition is a jewish state in some portion of the libly call promise land is is to take account of that ambiguity. what i would say is there's actually more basis in christian zionism for a two-state solution than you might think because for cri

christians, jerusalem is actually much more important than the west bank or occupied territories. and that's part of the reason that conservative protestants have been so enthusiastic about trump moving the embassy. the recognition of jewish sovereignty over jerusalem is absolutely central to this way of thinking. and even pub lured an open letter in t"the new york times" in which he said that christians must support a unified jerusalem under israeli control. it's not just fundamentialists who believe that. it's much less important and there's considerable dispute among christian zionists about how to resolve that problem. >> we have time for one last quick question. back there against.

the wall. >> i was wondering what the position of zionism is in the mormon church? >> that's a great question. and such an interesting one that i'll have to reserve it for the reception, which is going to begin in the moment. the short answer is that mormonism, which -- i should say mormons refer to be the lds church. the teaching resolves the paradox to which i allude in the book's title in an interesting way. the book is called "god's country." it could have been with a question mark because the question facing many of these people i'm describing is what is god's country. is it the land promised to abraham? or at least in some

interpretation or is this america, god's country. there's an oscillation as people try to figure out how both israel or the jewish people can be chosen. but america can also be chosen. the church solves that tension in an interesting way and says they are both god's country. at the end of time, there will be two zions, is and the the old exactly where it always has been. in lsd theology, there's no contradiction between the two. and i'll just mention one more anecdote because it's a good one. one of the tasks that the profit

set to his apostles was to travel to the holy land. and anoint the ground so that the jews could return there. there's actually a plaque in jerusalem set up by the lds church where this happened. and as a result of that view, mormons have always been hesitant to direct missions at jews. because they do believe in an ultimate reconciliation. but it's a double reconciliation. it's a recognition that god has two countries, both the united states or at least the saints based in america in the united states and israel. >> we could go on, but i do have to draw this to a close. a couple of housekeeping points. we do not meet next week on the 8th of october, but we will meet in two weeks on monday afternoon

to hear katherine cohen on her new book "invent iing the immigration problem." the reception will actually take place not right nx door but one floor down. another group is competing for space and they win on this floor. i want to thank our friends at c-span for joining us today. and thank you to samuel goldman. [ applause ] s. today's day five of a

partial government shutdown. the house and senate return thursday and negotiations continue on a spending bill to reopen the federal government. as the debate continues, you can watch live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2. holocaust survivor frank gruntwald recalls his experiences as a young boy after the nazis occupied his hometown and his family's deportation to the auschwitz concentration camp. this event was part of a community high school program in greensburg, indiana. it's an hour and 15 minutes. >> we're flattered to have everyone here for our annual program and we're very excited about this year's guests. i'd like to welcome john pratt up to the stage to begin our program today.