Darlene writes to the pastor of Capital Christian Church on April 12, 2004

Dear Pastor Rick,
We are considering a visit soon.
Do you teach that the State of Israel (the country) is the fulfillment of Bible prophesy  Is this significant for us
Darlene
Pastor Chris Howard answers Darlene on April 23, 2004
Hello Darlene,
My name is Chris Howard. I am a staff pastoral associate at Capital Christian Center. Pastor Rick Cole asked me to respond to your question that was sent April 12.  Now, in light of the more recent information about the visit or “vigil” that you are planning, the reason for the question becomes clearer.
I think it would be accurate to say that the church believes that Israel has a right to national existence.  Both for theological reasons and on a simple humanitarian basis as well.  A future existence for Israel as a nation seems assured by the Biblical covenants and their references to a seed (Christ), blessing, land, and rule, although some scholars disagree that these covenants have any future fulfillment.
Your e-mail says your are opposed to “successive slaughter in the Mideast,” (presumably including Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), the loss of American life, and the moral deterioration that occurs in soldiers involved in war. You also mention civilians, children, and the unborn. I would say that Capital Christian Center is concerned about these things as well.
What seems to be at issue is this: you ask the question, “We wonder if Capital Christian Center teaches that the present day State of Israel is a fulfillment of Bible prophesy [sic], therefore having a right to kill” Then you call this “Christian Racism.”  Racism is not Christian.
I would re-phrase the churchs position this way: Israel has a right to a national existence, on biblical, theological, sociological, political, humanitarian, and moral grounds. And, that they have the right to defend their national interests.
The appeal to the teaching of Jesus attitude toward children goes to the traditional pacifistic view that states and nations should adopt the same ethic of non violence as Jesus taught for inter-personal relations.  Is it sound interpretation to assume that Jesus teaching for person to person relationships can be simply applied to nations as a whole  Are nations the same as individuals in this regard
This, I think is the heart of the issue. What of Paul and Peters teaching regarding governmental authority and in the letter to the Roman Christians, the divine sanction of the use of force (see Romans 13:1-7 and  1 Pet.2:13-17).
Is the use of force ever justified If it is, under what circumstances  This church teaches submission and loyalty to the governmental authority of the land.  When authority is out of line with scripture, the Christian has the right of appeal to authority. This includes civic, social, and moral responsibilities in every venue.
Pacificism or non-pacifism do not revolve around the interpretation of Bible prophecy alone.
Finally, do you think holding a vigil will mobilize or motivate the evangellical church  Wouldnt you be better off appealing to the governmental authorities who control these decisions rather than trying to change the theological or moral undestandings of other groups of Christians  Perhaps its media coverage you seek  Why big churches  What of the rest
In Respectful Disagreement,
Pastor Chris Howard
Capital Bible College
Capital Christian Center