Setting The Scene
I will never forget October 9, 2023. It was a sunny day in Michigan, and I was just finishing a day of work when I tuned into the Ben Shapiro Show entitled “The Face of Absolute Evil.” Nothing could have prepared me for what I was about to see. Shapiro decided to show videos of the October 7 attack on this episode, so that viewers would understand what evil looks like. To the day I die, I will forever be haunted of the images I saw, including men and women lying in a pool of their own blood after being shot dead, a live man’s head being hacked off with a spade while the killer screamed, “Allahu Akbar!”, and numerous other similar acts of terror. The October 7 massacre resulted in the death of over 1200 Israelis, 240 kidnapped, and untold victims of rape and torture at the hands of the Hamas terror group.
Meanwhile, for centuries, the radical left—the ‘woke,’ Cultural Marxists—have likewise had a penchant for violence. In this perspective, the world is comprised of oppressors and oppressed. The “oppressors” are people who believe in Western values, particularly Americans and European “settlers” who have “colonized” the world with Judeo-Christian values. The “oppressed” are those who reject these values, and are all somehow exploited by the West. The left creates this narrative by exploiting mistakes America and Europe have made in their history, such as slavery and various atrocities, and using those to claim that Western values are only these mistakes, and nothing more. They ignore the blessings of liberty Western values have brought to the world, such as property rights, the common law justice system, and mitigating poverty through free markets.
Nevertheless, from the 20th century to today, leftists have held this reductionistic view of the world, and it has wreaked havoc in American society. Among the most influential poster boys for this worldview is Critical Theorist and Postmodernist Jean Paul Sartre, who wrote in his preface to Frantz Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth”,
I think we understood this truth at one time, but we have forgotten it–that no gentleness can efface the marks of violence; only violence itself can destroy [Westerners]. The native cures himself of colonial neurosis by thrusting out the settler through force of arms.”
Sartre contends that since oppressed “natives” have been “colonized” by the west, violence is justified to overthrow the Western capitalist system.
When we apply this ideology to the October 7, we can see how the radical left has justified the bloody attack on innocent civilians. Israel is a Jewish culture containing many of the same Biblical, Western values as America. Therefore, it is an oppressor. By contrast, Gaza is an Islamic territory which seeks the eradication of Jews and ultimately, the West. Therefore, it is an oppressed victim. With all the nuances and complexities of this conflict, Critical Theorists reduce their analysis to this simple dichotomy. This explains their justification of the horrors of Hamas’ attack on Jews. In summary, we call this view of the conflict Critical Terrorist Theory (CTT), because it applies the same oppressor-oppressed dynamic in Critical Theory (‘wokeness’) that Sartre espouses, to the turmoil in the middle-east.
CTT has reared its ugly head in America recently, but the shocking thing is that has arisen even in the church. This article will highlight several key instances in which false teachers in the church have employed CTT to justify the October 7 attack. We will additionally look at the tactics they utilize to persuade audiences, as well as the hidden agenda behind the inflammatory rhetoric.
I want you to think about something as we explore CTT. What about about all the people groups that Islamic Arabs oppress? Or have even obliterated? Why do they not qualify for the same treatment that CTT gives to Arabs? Could it be that there’s some kind of agenda that those people do not fit?
Compassion for Terror Sympathizers
The first example comes from Brad Bull of progressive “Christian” news outlet Baptist News Global, in which Bull created a list of questions to ask your pastor regarding sermons in your local church about the Israel-‘Palestine’ conflict. Let’s ignore the question of Bull placing himself above people’s local pastors, and look at one of the many troubling questions he asks include,
In the 30 or so minutes of the time-limited message, if the word ‘Palestinian’ was used at all in an expression of compassion, was it said more often than criticism of ‘woke’ politics. (Yes / No)”
According to Bull, if the answer is “no,” then that is problematic. For him, pastors should be sympathizing with ‘Palestinians’ more than they are criticizing the ‘woke’ for downplaying these atrocities, which as we will see they have done repeatedly. Interestingly enough, he is right to place opposition to “woke politics” as an opposite of supporting Gazans. Glad to see him in favor of my idea of calling it CTT.
While it is right to have compassion for innocent Gazans who oppose Hamas’ barbarism, it is also important to be honest in these kinds of conversations. In a 2021 poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, they found that 53% of ‘Palestinians’ (unclear what the distributions between Gazans and those in the West Bank) thought that Hamas is “most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people.” This poll was taken after Hamas had tyrannized Gaza, leaving most of its inhabitants poor, and after they had committed several terror attacks against Israeli civilians. Bull fails to explain why pastors must express “compassion” (without explaining what that means) for majority Hamas-sympathizing Gazans (and perhaps ‘Palestinians’ in general) more often than criticizing the ‘woke’ for their deliberate whitewashing of the bloodbath that took place on October 7. This seems like an arbitrary standard meant to, at best, promote a narrative that creates a moral equivalence between Israel and ‘Palestine.’ Moreover, Bull does this without qualifying the distinction between pro-Hamas and Hamas-victimized Gazans. But it gets worse.
October 7 is Israel’s Fault
In the same article, Bull continues to downplay Hamas atrocities and condemn Israel’s failures, real or perceived. Within the combative line of questioning Bull says congregants are supposed to use to interrogate their pastors about their preaching on Israel, he suggests the following question:
Since you did go political, let me ask you this: If we ignore the way Israel abuses the human rights and territory of Palestinians, doesn’t that just help radicalize terrorists and put more innocent people in harm’s way? Are you prepared to take responsibility for unnecessarily fomenting violence rather than promoting peace?”
*disagreeing with your pastor is fine, but never talk to him like this… in fact, never talk to anyone like this
These questions are loaded with several unspoken assumptions designed to persuade the reader of claims that have not been supported with any evidence. These assumptions are as follows: (1) Israel is a routine abuser of human rights; (2) this abuse gives Hamas justification to rape, murder, and kidnap; (3) if pastors don’t agree with assumptions 1 and 2, then they are “fomenting violence rather than promoting peace.”
These three presuppositions have no basis in fact. While individual Israelis surely have done bad things and Israel may have committed some ‘human rights abuses’ since its inception in 1948, Israeli forces have never snuck into Gaza to deliberately target innocent civilians. Furthermore, as Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire has observed regarding Hamas,
They understand the Western press pretends there is some sort of moral equivalence between a Hamas terrorist riding into a kibbutz and beheading a child and Israel attempting to minimize civilian casualties on the Gaza Strip and failing because Hamas is hiding behind children.”
However, even if we accepted the belief that Israel is a routine human rights abuser for the sake of argument, that would still not even remotely justify the disgusting actions of Hamas. For this reason, Bull’s attempt to draw a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel is unconscionable and heartless.
Israel = Oppressor; Palestine = Oppressed
This is not the only time Baptist News Global has thrown shade on Israel while painting an oppressor-oppressed narrative in the Israel-‘Palestine’ conflict. In another recent article, Bob Roberts claims the following regarding the ‘Palestinians:’
They are people who’ve lived in an oppressed state and everybody who can leave has pretty much left. …although we’ve acknowledged the injustices of the Jews, we have failed to acknowledge the injustices to the Palestinians.”
In true Critical Terrorist Theory fashion, Roberts makes the vague claim that ‘Palestinians’ are oppressed recipients of injustice. He does this without defining what he means by “oppressed state,” who is doing the oppressing, what is the injustice ‘Palestinians’ have faced at the hands of Israel, nor any evidence of this oppression and injustice. It may be useful to look honestly at some blunders Israel has made historically while dealing with ‘Palestinians,’ but without proof or definitions, this article gives the sense that Roberts wants the audience to see ‘Palestine’ as oppressed, and Israel as oppressors with very little nuance or context.
When one continues reading, this oppression lens becomes more apparent. For instance, Roberts morally pontificates on the justness of the war following October 7:
I don’t want to stand before God one day with thousands of little children that were blown to smithereens and say it was a just war.”
Here, Roberts presupposes that Israel’s war with Hamas is not just because he disagrees with some of the methods Israel has employed in the war. Firstly, the methods used can be a cause for debate, but a good-faith debate would acknowledge that Hamas is using its own citizens as human shields in multiple ways, such as by keeping civilians in places where the IDF forewarns that a bomb is coming, and by operating their headquarters directly underneath a hospital. Roberts fails to mention this and unqualifiedly condemns Israel for blowing “thousands of little children” to “smithereens” without placing any blame on Hamas for putting these children in that situation.
Secondly, determining whether the war itself is just does not depend on what tactics are used, but on whether the precipitating event that caused the war justifies the war. As we’ve seen, October 7 resulted in massive bloodshed and unspeakable cruelty in Israel. To say that responding with a war on Hamas is not justified without reason betrays a remarkable hubris and lack of serious thought on the matter. If Roberts does not believe a war is a just response in this instance, then what atrocity would be severe enough to warrant Hamas’s eradication? Once again, Roberts provides no answer, only condemnation for Israel.
Praising Hamas
Baptist News global is not the only so-called “Christian” news outlet spreading this kind of antisemitic bile. Good Faith Media has joined the unholy chorus of demagoguery in its story about the aftermath of October 7. calling the attack “lamentable but inevitable.” Self-proclaimed “pastor” and author of this article, Wendell Griffen, claims that
“Hamas exposed the folly and moral lunacy of the 75-year U.S.-European-led diplomatic, military, intelligence, cultural strategy concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
With no words of condemnation for this terrorist organization, Griffen praises Hamas for exposing the supposed moral foolishness of western civilization. It is hard to believe that a man who calls himself a pastor could say something so heinous in light of the barbarity Hamas subjected Israel to, and that this article was written in response to said atrocity.
Griffen goes on to display his adherence to CTT by blaming “white people” for the Israel-Hamas war:
“Rational people understand that when oppression cannot be stopped by nonviolent means, people will eventually turn to violent means to do so. However, the prerogative of moral violence has always been considered the exclusive right of white people. Israel followed the lead of other white imperialists and colonizers since the western Christian Church established the idolatrous and blasphemous 15th-century Doctrine of Discovery.
The key difference is that Zionist zealotry—rather than Christian missionary zealotry— is the excuse given for Israeli imperialism and colonialism in Palestine. Israeli Zionist imperialism and colonialism and Euro-American imperialism and colonialism are merely different sides of the same white supremacist hateful faith coin…The history of pro-Israeli sentiment in this society is deep and strong. I attribute some of it to racism.”
*this is your daily reminder that ‘white’ has nothing to do with color, as Arabs and Israelis are related and cover the same skin tones, but it is about ideology. White=the oppressor. The oppressor=historically Jewish and Christian, “Western” nations, with “West” itself also not adhering to what the word implies
One can see the oppressor-oppressed power dynamics inherent in Critical Theory prevalent in these paragraphs. Through this lens, Griffen makes unsubstantiated statements that justify Hamas’s attack. The first premise is that “white people” are oppressors who desire to hold a monopoly on killing nonwhites, while expecting nonwhites not to fight back. The second premise is that nonwhites and people from non-Western countries are all victims of circumstance with no moral agency, who are merely reacting to their environment. This leads to the conclusion that murdering, kidnapping, and raping women, children, and babies is somehow “rational,” and that opposition to these murders is “racist.” Again, not only are these claims outlandishly violent, but they are also made without the slightest attempt to prove their truth with evidence. They are assumed in advance, intended to be believed by the gullible and those who already agree. This kind of disgusting rhetoric epitomizes what the prophet Isaiah refers to as “calling evil good and good evil.”
The Agenda Behind the Façade
One may wonder what is the goal of such bloodthirsty, antisemitic, and may I borrow a term they like: racist speech? Professed “Christian” and enemy within the church, Dante Stewart, gives us a hint in his tweet on the issue:
“The bonds of colonial powers at work in world are breaking. The globe needs to be liberated from empire.”
In the backdrop of this tweet are protesters waving ‘Palestinian’ flags in solidarity against Israel. As we have seen in the previous quotes, as well as here, CTT views everything from the lens of oppression and power. Stewart is no exception, as his worldview demands that Israel be an oppressor, simply by the fact that it is a nation with more power and resources than surrounding Arab nations. In the end, his goal is obliteration of America, Europe, and Israel, because he hates western values and everything it stands for. This is ironic, given the fact that the West is largely built on a Biblical foundation, and Stewart pretends to follow Christ. Nevertheless, this point of view is among the most potent cosmic powers of darkness facing the church in the present age. We must stand firm on the word of God in the face of this imminent and growing threat.
Want more? We talked about “Critical Terrorist Theory” in a more broad sense on our podcast
Grace and Peace 💚
Thanks for this depth article .
Grace and peace to you too. Thanks for giving it a read, I pray it was beneficial to the glory of God.