It is well known that the Christians evangelicals have shown great $upport to the Jewish people in general and the State of Israel in particular.
Is this a positive or negative development?
R' Shlomo Riskin thinks its great. This is what he wrote 11 years ago.
Back in May, the Chief Rabbinate criticized Jewish participation in a Christian women's conference organized in Jerusalem by the Knesset's Christian Allies Caucus. The issue generated controversy .... As a rabbi who entered the rabbinate in June 1963 with a strong bias against any inter-faith dialogue and cooperation, and who is now so passionate about the importance of inter-religious communication and study that I have established an Institute for the furtherance of Jewish - Christian Understanding in Efrat (where many Christians have been studying the Jewish roots of their faith), I want to state clearly the reasons for the sea-change in my outlook.
TO PARAPHRASE Charles Dickens in the beginning of his Tale of Two Cities: These are the best of times, and the worst of times. On the one hand, after almost 2,000 years of exile and persecution, culminating in the Holocaust, we have returned to our homeland, to Jewish sovereignty in Jerusalem, to a Jewish army and a Jewish police force, and to the miracle of the ingathering of exiles, from the Ethiopian Beta Yisrael to the Indian Bnei Menashe. But, on the other hand, we face the existential threat of Iran's Ahmadinejad soon to be in control of atomic weaponry; we are threatened by Hamas in the South, and by Hizbullah in the North. Moreover, our staunchest ally, the United States of America, is being neutralized by what appears to be a hopeless imbroglio in Iraq. Europe is quickly becoming transformed into a pro-Muslim bastion, and Islam itself seems poised for world domination following a line of jihad-inspired Wahhabi fanaticism. Yes, I truly have faith that to be alone with God is to be with a majority of One; but from a practical perspective, how can roughly 5.5 million Israelis plus another seven million Jews world-wide stand up to more than a billion Muslims?
NOW IT seems that thankfully God had provided the cure even before we diagnosed the disease. For the first time since the advent of Christianity, mainstream Christian leaders - Catholic, Evangelical and Protestant - have extended a hand to us Jews in friendship, a friendship with far-reaching theological and political ramifications. And there are more than a billion Christians in the world. What is now happening on the worldwide geopolitical scene is much more than "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." In this case, the enemy (Christianity) of my enemy (radical Islam) is my cousin, if not my brother. After all, Christianity emerged from the matrix of Judaism, and the founder of Christianity was a Jewish teacher who - it would certainly appear from the Gospels - lived a Jewish life-style, replete with the Sabbath, festivals and kashrut. Hence there is every logical, historical and religious reason for there to be a rapprochement between us. I cannot blame many of my co-religionists for being skeptical. Often those who are closest to each other - and yet differ in many fundamental areas of theology and belief - become the most implacable of enemies. (Witness the Catholic-Protestant bloodshed in Ireland until a very short time ago, and the often petty infighting between Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews). And the past 2,000 years of Christian-Jewish relations have been characterized by inquisitions, forced conversions and deicide-inspired pogroms, which set the stage for the European Holocaust (See Malcolm Hay's The Foot of Pride). Perhaps the present-day Christian outpouring of friendship is merely a more sophisticated, Laban-like attempt at missionary activity to coopt the Jews for Christianity, and therefore we must respond with "thanks, but no thanks"? I think not. My reasoning is based on the fact that the very time-honored theological positions of Christianity that made immediate conversion of the Jews so necessary for the Church have been publicly and officially contravened and nullified by leading Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical spokesmen and institutions.
HISTORICALLY, virtually all Christian denominations believed in "supersessionism," that the ancient covenant between God and Israel had been superseded, taken over, by the Christians, and that therefore non salus extra ecclesiam - there can be no salvation outside of the Church." Hence, for Jews to be "saved" eternally, they must convert (or be converted) to Christianity. Moreover, Christianity maintained that Jews deserve to be hated, reviled, persecuted, homeless and stateless as long as they reject Jesus the Messiah; indeed, that Jews bear collective and historic guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus because the Gospels record that the Jewish "rabble" cried out to Pontius Pilate that Jesus must be crucified, declaring that Jesus' "blood will be on us and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). These past fundamental Christian beliefs are no longer held to be true by much of the mainstream Christian establishment leadership. Largely in the aftermath of the horrors of the Holocaust, which many responsible Christian leaders understood to have been fueled by Christian anti-Semitism throughout the ages, as well as the emergence of the State of Israel, which rendered meaningless the Christian charge that Jews were doomed to exile and wandering so long as they rejected Jesus, the Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical Churches profoundly revised their earlier doctrines regarding the Jews.
THAT CHANGE began on October 28, 1965, when Pope John XXIII delivered his historic encyclical, Nostra Aetate, which dealt frontally with these very issues: "The church cannot forget that she received the Revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree unto which have been grafted the wild-shoots, the Gentiles. God does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues. "What happened in (Jesus') passion cannot be charged against all the Jews without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accused by God. The Church decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." Pope John Paul II, in "Notes," added, "The permanence of Israel is a historic fact to be interpreted within God's design. It remains a chosen people." And Cardinal Walter Kasper, today the highest Vatican authority in charge of Catholic-Jewish relations, has stated that there is "no mission to the Jews. There is dialogue and dialogue respects the difference of the other and brings mutual enrichment." IN 1994 the Vatican recognized the State of Israel, and, in March 2000, Pope John Paul II visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Museum, and declared: "We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who, in the course of history, have caused these children of Yours to suffer. Asking forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant" (see Eugene Korn, The Man of Faith and Inter-Faith Dialogue: Revisiting Confrontation and his forthcoming Rethinking Christianity). A Protestant group in Damstadt, Germany, the Orders of the Sisters of Miriam, have established a veritable kibbutz in Darmstadt, called New Canaan, all the profits of which are sent to Israel. These magnanimous and magnificent women have divided their village into areas of Jerusalem, Bet El, Ofra, Efrat etc., speak a flawless Hebrew, and declared publicly in response to a talk I gave them that "the 'suffering servant' chapter of Isaiah (53) can also be interpreted to apply to the children of Israel" in their perspective.
THE FRIENDSHIP shown to Israel by many Evangelicals has no peer in all of Jewish history. Prominent theologians and humanists - such as Pastor Robert Stearns of Eagles' Wings and Dr. Malcolm Hedding of International Christian Embassy Jerusalem - are constantly bringing inspired groups to Israel to learn about Christianity's Jewish roots and to give moral and financial support to our heroic but embattled State of Israel. Pastor Jack Hayford, the head of the Pentecostal church, moved me to tears when he repeated twice that were Israel to be in need of soldiers, he and his people (the pastor preaches every Sunday to 9,000 congregants) would fight side by side with us. Pastor John Hagee of San Antonio Texas and international TV fame has established a "Christian AIPAC" to politically support Israel throughout America. And both of these charismatic theologians have said that they subscribe to a single covenant theory: God entered into a covenant with Israel, upon which the Christians grafted themselves. Pastor Hagee mesmerized thousands of Jewish AIPAC supporters when he told them that his love and commitment to Israel emanates from Genesis 12:3, where God promises Abraham: "I will bless those who bless you; and those who curse you, shall be cursed." Would that more Jews had such faith in our people. Certainly we must remain vigilant against Christian groups whose raison d'etre is missionizing Jews. However, those many Christian denominations who wish to learn from us and strengthen our common beliefs in a God of love, morality and peace ought to be encouraged in their friendship.
MY OWN theological perspective regarding our true partnership with the Christian world emanates from the biblical "Double Covenant" position: God entered into a first covenant with Noah, a covenant with humanity, comprising the seven Noahide universal laws of morality, based upon the premise "He who sheds the blood of another will have his blood shed, since the human being was created in God's image." He entered into a second covenant with Abraham, eventually comprising the 613 commandments of the Bible. We were initially charged with communicating the seven laws of morality to the world; after all, every human being emanated from the same Divine womb (Job 31:15), we are all siblings, and especially in a global village with nuclear weaponry we are each of us human, responsible co-signers for each other. Hence God charged Abraham: "All the families of the earth shall be blessed through you" (Genesis 12:3) Probably during the Roman period of Hadrianic persecutions (circa 136-140 CE ), we dropped the ball and ceased to attempt to fulfill this aspect of our mission (despite Maimonides' Laws of Kings, where he rules that just as we bear responsibility to teach our fellow Jews 613 commandments, we are likewise responsible even to coerce, if necessary, the Gentiles of the world to accept the 7 Noahide laws of morality). Thankfully, this function was provided by the Christians, who brought to all the Gentiles of the globe the seven Noahide laws of morality, the Ten Commandments and the belief in a God of love, compassion and peace. From this perspective, Jews and Christians are truly partners, and in a world threatened by jihad terrorism, our partnership is the only hope for a world of peace and freedom, of religious moderation which encompasses Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. This is the understanding of Maimonides, who writes toward the end of his Mishna Torah (11:11-13, Yemenite uncensored Manuscript, Kapah edition): "There is no human power to comprehend the designs of the Creator of the Universe since our ways are not His ways and our thoughts are not His thoughts. Hence all of the words of Jesus the Nazarene and of the Ishmaelite who came after him (Muhammad) served to pave the way for the King Messiah and to repair the whole world to serve the Lord in unison, for it is written, (Zephania 9:3), 'I shall make all the people pure of speech, so that they all call upon the name of the Lord and serve Him with one heart.' "How so? The entire world has been filled with the words of the Messiah and the words of the Torah and the words of the commandments, and these words have been disseminated even to faraway islands, and to many nations of uncircumcised hearts, who are now dealing with these concepts and with Biblical commandments.
But Rav Herschel Schachter alludes to R' Riskin and takes issue with him:
It is very painful to see that there is missionary activity taking place in Eretz Yisroel. The official Catholic response to the Zionist movement (when it first began) was that this "dream" will never be realized. They argued that Eretz Yisroel is "the chosen land" set aside for "the chosen people", and the Jews lost their special status as "the chosen people" when they rejected oso ha'ish. The establishment of the medinah in 1948 clearly contradicted this claim of the church. To defend their position they "explained" that the medinah did not include the makom Hamikdash, the old city of Jerusalem, or Chevron, i.e. all of the holy locations of ancient Eretz Yisroel, and as such was not considered to be "the chosen land". Immediately after the 1967 war, when all of these ancient holy areas were also under Jewish control, the pope proclaimed (and every year since then all of the subsequent popes have made the same statement) that Jerusalem should become "an international city." Because Jewish control of the old city of Jerusalem is a glaring contradiction to the claim of the Church that we have forfeited our status as the am hanivchar, the Church would like control to be taken away from the Jews to defend its theological position. The church feels that its missionary activities in Eretz Yisroel will ultimately lead to the Jews accepting oso ha'ish and once again becoming "the chosen people" who rightfully rule over the holy land.
Every so often newspapers quote non-Jewish ministers claiming that they have "a covenantal connection" with the holy land. This is a repeat of their theological principle that Eretz Yisroel is "the chosen land" for "the chosen nation", and that after the Jews rejected oso ha'ish they (the Catholics) became "the chosen nation" to whom G-d's covenant with Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yakkov to give Eretz Yisroel to their descendants applies. How painful it is that some Orthodox rabbis also state that their "brethren" (the Catholics) have "a covenantal connection" to Eretz Yisroel. These rabbis don't realize that by making such irresponsible statements they are playing into the hands of the avodah zarah.
These same rabbis pride themselves on educating thousands of Catholics every year in the mitzvos of the Torah. The Chumash speaks of our accepting korbanos from non-Jews (Vayikra 22:25), and the halacha speaks of non-Jews volunteering, as an eino metzuveh v'oseh, to observe additional mitzvos over and above the basic seven mitzvos required of all Noachides (see Mishnah Berurah end of siman 304 in the Biur Halacha). However, these rabbis are fundamentally mistaken in their understanding of this halacha.
We may only accept a non-Jew's sacrifices in the Holy Temple when they are offered la'Shomayim. As long as they believe in oso ha'ish and are sacrificing to him, this is outright avodah zarah, and we may not allow these sacrifices to be brought on our mizbeach. If a non-Jew is convinced of monotheism and wears a tallis and sits in a sukkah etc. as an eino metzuveh v'oseh, this is commendable. But if a non-Jew still believes in oso ha'ish and wears a tallis and sits in a sukkah as a means of identifying with that avodah zarah, this does not fall under the category of one volunteering mitzvos as an eino metzuveh v'oseh, but is rather an act of deepening his commitment to his avodah zarah. Woe unto those rabbis who are deepening and furthering avodah zarah commitments and practices.
Years ago Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik warned, both in his public addresses as well in his written essay (Confrontation and its Addendum) against having any such contact with the church. How shameful it is that people who claim to be "disciples" of his have "reinterpreted" his words to mean the exact opposite of what they really say, and have then added that even if at one time he did prohibit such interaction with the church, this clearly no longer applies today. To the best of my understanding, moshiach has not yet arrived and the world is still full of avodah zarah!
Achronim had a debate whether believing in the trinity constitutes avodah zarah for a Noachide or not; but for Jews there is no question that it is avodah zarah! And even for bnai Noach, Rav Solovetichik quoted in the name of his grandfather Rav Chaim that this understanding of the Remah and Shach was a shegagah she'yatz'ah milifnei hashalit and it makes no sense to distinguish between the definition of avodah zarah for a Jew and for a ben Noach.
The human desire to be mechadesh (to act as an original thinker) has misled these rabbis in Eretz Yisroel to play into the hands of avodah zarah and shemad. The words of this week's parsha stand out clearly to teach us that in Eretz Yisroel we are required to be even more careful when dealing with the church. Time and time again the Torah warns us that in Eretz Yisroel we must not get involved with avodah zarah. Officially Hakadosh Baruch Hu is the King over Eretz Yisroel (see Mordechai to Gittin #401), and the midrashim refer to all of Eretz Yisroel as the "palace of the King". The Ramban (end of Acharei Mos) explains that the main location for observance of all of the mitzvos is Eretz Yisroel, and one who sins there is compared to one who rebels against a king's authority in his palace, which is a more brazen sin than sinning elsewhere (see Avnei Nezer, Yoreh Deah #454).
Apparently the sanctity of Eretz Yisroel arouses strong feelings of spirituality that one must take care to channel properly. These strong feelings can mislead even the wise to get carried away by their imagination and their desire to be original thinkers, and in turn to strengthen avodah zarah and shemad. Some rabbis have gained credibility by claiming to be disciples of Rav Soloveitchik, and then have proceeded to totally misrepresent his views on these issues of avodah zarah and shemad.
--------------
One note: It seems [based on recent events] that at least the Evangelicals believe that Jerusalem and Israel belongs to the Jewish people and not only do they not have theological problems with this reality but actually actively support our right to our own governance in the Holy Land.
---------------
Rav Meyer Twersky Shlita:
In general, psak halacha is exclusively reserved for talmidim she’higi’u l’hora’a, great torah sages. Chazal unequivocally condemn those who are not qualified to pasken, and yet do so. “He is a wicked, delusionary, and arrogant person.” “(such people) increase divisiveness, destroy the world, extinguish the lamp of Torah, and violate the vineyard of Hashem” (Ramabm Hil. Talmud Torah, Perek 5). Psak halacha in this context denotes adjudicating a new or unresolved question, or applying halacha in new situations. A rav need not consider himself a great Torah sage, however, to guide his ba’alei batim or talmidim regarding explicit halachos in Shulchan Aruch or matters and situations about which he has a tradition in psak halacha.
Certain questions, due either to the gravity of the issurim involved or their implications for Klal Yisroel or both, are reserved for gedolei Yisroel. Outstanding though they are, even talmidim she’higi’u l’hora’a refer such questions to the gedolim. For instance, questions of aguna due to the gravity of issur eishes ish and yuchsin, have always been referred to gedolim, and even they traditionally seek the approval of their colleagues in issuing a heter...
I believe – and I write without pretensions or delusions, as a talmid shelo higia l’hora’a – that we urgently need to engage in introspection regarding these matters of psak halacha. Too often we do not defer and refer to the appropriate halachic authorities. Case in point: the recent renewed interest and debate concerning interfaith relations and dialogue. What needs to be emphasized is the absolute indispensability of referring such questions to our gedolim. Such questions involve potentially grave issurim and also have profound implications for Klal Yisroel.
-----
So here is a gadol bi-yisrael - Rav Moshe Feinstein, strongly forbidding any interfaith dialogue:
שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ג סימן מג
שני תשובות בענין איסור לילך לאסיפה עם נוצרים בענייני התקרבות באמונה והתחברות עמם. א' י"ט אדר ראשון תשכ"ז מע"כ ידידי הנכבד מהר"ר דובער לאנדער שליט"א הנה בדבר שכתר"ה הבטיח לבא למקום שיתאספו בכ"ג אדר א' קאטאליקן ופראטעסטאנטן /קטולים ופרוטסטנטים/ יחד עם בנ"י מחברי סינאגיאג קאנסול וגם חברים רבנים מהסתדרות הרבנים, אף שמה שידבר כתר"ה יהיה במילי דעלמא, פשוט וברור שהוא איסור חמור של אביזרייהו דע"ז אשר פשטה המגפה עתה בהרבה מקומות ע"י יזמת הפויפסט /האפיפיור/ החדש אשר כל כוונתו הוא להעביר את כל היהודים מאמונתם הטהורה והקדושה ושיקבלו את אמונת הנוצרים, שיותר נוח להעביר באופן זה מבאופן השנאה והרציחות שהשתמשו הפויפסטן שלפניו, ולכן כל מגע ומשא עמהם אף בדברים בעלמא ועצם ההתקרבות הוא אסור באיסור החמור דהתקרבות לע"ז, ויש להחשיב זה גם באיסור מסית ומדיח, שאף אם כתר"ה ועוד רבנים שילכו לשם יזהרו בדבריהם וגם לא יחניפו להכומרים ואמונתם כמו שמחניפים הראבייס המסיתים ומדיחים מרעפארמער וקאנסערוואטיוון /מרפורמים וקונסרבטיבים/ ילמדו מזה הרבה אנשים לילך לדרשות המיסיאונערן /המסיונרים/ וכדומה, וכן אין לכת"ר לשלח אף במכתב לשם מה שהיה חושב לדבר כי כל פגישה עמהם הוא סיוע למזימתם הרשעה ביותר. וכן אסור להשתתף בשום אופן באספות כאלו ששמעתי שרוצים לעשות בבאסטאן וברומא וכל המשתתף עמהם יהיו מי שיהיו הם נחשבים למסיתים ומדיחים את כלל ישראל, דמה שעמלו המיסיאונערן של הקאטאליקן כל השנים ולא עלה בידם רק מעט דמעט, ח"ו ע"י רבנים חסרי דעת כאלו שרוצים להשתתף עמהם אפשר שישתמדו עי"ז הרבה יותר, ואין טוענים למסית לומר שלא נתכוין לזה ויתחייבו בנפשם ח"ו בזה ובבא.
ולכן לא ישגיח על מה שלא יקיים הבטחתו לבא לשם ולדבר כי אדרבה אולי עי"ז שכתר"ה לא ילך מצד האיסור גם אחרים לא ילכו ויהיה בכלל מזכי הרבים. ידידו מוקירו, משה פיינשטיין.
שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ג סימן מג
שני תשובות בענין איסור לילך לאסיפה עם נוצרים בענייני התקרבות באמונה והתחברות עמם. א' י"ט אדר ראשון תשכ"ז מע"כ ידידי הנכבד מהר"ר דובער לאנדער שליט"א הנה בדבר שכתר"ה הבטיח לבא למקום שיתאספו בכ"ג אדר א' קאטאליקן ופראטעסטאנטן /קטולים ופרוטסטנטים/ יחד עם בנ"י מחברי סינאגיאג קאנסול וגם חברים רבנים מהסתדרות הרבנים, אף שמה שידבר כתר"ה יהיה במילי דעלמא, פשוט וברור שהוא איסור חמור של אביזרייהו דע"ז אשר פשטה המגפה עתה בהרבה מקומות ע"י יזמת הפויפסט /האפיפיור/ החדש אשר כל כוונתו הוא להעביר את כל היהודים מאמונתם הטהורה והקדושה ושיקבלו את אמונת הנוצרים, שיותר נוח להעביר באופן זה מבאופן השנאה והרציחות שהשתמשו הפויפסטן שלפניו, ולכן כל מגע ומשא עמהם אף בדברים בעלמא ועצם ההתקרבות הוא אסור באיסור החמור דהתקרבות לע"ז, ויש להחשיב זה גם באיסור מסית ומדיח, שאף אם כתר"ה ועוד רבנים שילכו לשם יזהרו בדבריהם וגם לא יחניפו להכומרים ואמונתם כמו שמחניפים הראבייס המסיתים ומדיחים מרעפארמער וקאנסערוואטיוון /מרפורמים וקונסרבטיבים/ ילמדו מזה הרבה אנשים לילך לדרשות המיסיאונערן /המסיונרים/ וכדומה, וכן אין לכת"ר לשלח אף במכתב לשם מה שהיה חושב לדבר כי כל פגישה עמהם הוא סיוע למזימתם הרשעה ביותר. וכן אסור להשתתף בשום אופן באספות כאלו ששמעתי שרוצים לעשות בבאסטאן וברומא וכל המשתתף עמהם יהיו מי שיהיו הם נחשבים למסיתים ומדיחים את כלל ישראל, דמה שעמלו המיסיאונערן של הקאטאליקן כל השנים ולא עלה בידם רק מעט דמעט, ח"ו ע"י רבנים חסרי דעת כאלו שרוצים להשתתף עמהם אפשר שישתמדו עי"ז הרבה יותר, ואין טוענים למסית לומר שלא נתכוין לזה ויתחייבו בנפשם ח"ו בזה ובבא.
ולכן לא ישגיח על מה שלא יקיים הבטחתו לבא לשם ולדבר כי אדרבה אולי עי"ז שכתר"ה לא ילך מצד האיסור גם אחרים לא ילכו ויהיה בכלל מזכי הרבים. ידידו מוקירו, משה פיינשטיין.
ב' בע"ה ט' אדר שני תשכ"ז מע"כ ש"ב ידידי וחביבי הגאון הגדול המפורסם מרביץ תורה ברבים מהרי"ד סאלאווייציק שליט"א. שלו' וברכה כל הימים.
בדבר אשר איזה רבנים מהצעירים נלכדו בפח של ראש הכומרים בוואטיקאן בשם המועצה האקומנית (עקומענישן ראט), אשר כוונתו הוא להעביר כל היהודים לאמונתם ח"ו והקראדנאלן והבישאפן /והקרדינאלים והבישופים/ נצטוו ממנו לעשות התחברות בין הכומרים ובין הרבנים בוועדות (בקאמיטעס) בכל מקום ומקום וגם בהתכנסיות (קאנווענשאנס), והצליח מעשה שטן שנתחברו לזה איזה רבנים בהוראת היתר שלא ידברו בעניני אמונה אלא בענייני חברה (סאציאלע אנגעלעגענהייטן), אשר לבד שכמעט כל הדברים הם עניני דת שלהכומרים הוא השקפה אחרת, ולבד שכל כוונתם הוא רק לבא ע"י זה לעניני אמונה, הנה פשוט שעצם ההתחברות עמהם אף לדברים בעלמא הוא דבר אסור בכל עת ועידן, וכ"ש עתה שבא זה מעצה הרשעה של ראש הכומרים שאסור, וכדחזינן שהעתונים מתפארים מזה שכבר הוא כבאו לשיווי אמונה ודעות ולהתפלל יחד וכדומה, וכבר שאל אותי אחד מרבנים הצעירים אשר נשלח מהסתדרות הרבנים לדבר בכ"ג אדר א' שהיה כעין התכנסות בנוא יארק מחבור הכומרים להבדיל עם רבנים אם מותר לו ללכת לשם באשר שבישיבה ההיא לא ידברו מעניני אמונה וכתבתי לו שאסור באיסור החמור דמסית אף שאין כוונתו לזה. וב"ה ששמע לדברי ועתה בקרוב יהיה התכנסות כזה באופן יותר גדול בבאסטאן, ולכן להפר עצת הרשעים והצלחת מעשה שטן ולהציל כלל ישראל משמד ח"ו היתה רצוני שגם הו"ג יחתום על הכתב שאני שולח במכתבי זה שאיסור גמור הוא להתחבר עם הכומרים בשום אופן אף לא לדברים בעלמא ולא להשתתף בהתכנסות שיהיה בבאסטאן ולא בשום התכנסות עמהם בשום מקום לא במדינה זו ולא ביוראפ ולא לסייע בשום דבר לעצת ראש הכומרים בעקומעניזם שלו. ומקוה אני שפס"ד של שנינו ימנע לכל הרבנים מזה, ותופר עצת הרשעים בעקומעניזם שעשו ואם הו"ג רוצה לכתוב בכתב עצמו ויכתוב לי העתקת נוסחו. וידוע לי טרדת הו"ג בימים אלו ה' ירחם אבל הוא כבוד שמים לעמוד בפרץ הגדול הזה שלכן בטוח אני שיבליג על צערו וטרדתו ותיכף יחתום ע"ז שאסור וישלח לי בחזרה.
והנני ידידו ש"ב מוקירו מאד גומר בברכה כפולה לרפואה שלימה, משה פיינשטיין.
נוסח האיסור בדבר ענין עקומעניזם אשר יצא בעצת ראשי אמונת הנוצרים אשר הכוונה היא להעביר לשמד ח"ו שהצליח מעשה שטן לפתות לזה גם איזה רבנים להתחבר בחבורה אחת עם כומרים בקאמיטעס /בועדות/ קבועים בכל מקום ומקום וגם בקאנווענשאנס במדינה זו וביוראפ, הנה אנחנו מודיעים כי הוא איסור גמור וברור שאסור לעשות חבורות יחד רבנים עם כומרים ולא להיות בקאנווענשאנס לא במה שיהיה בבאסטאן ולא בשום מקום לא במדינה זו ולא במדינות אחרות, ואף לא לדברים בעלמא שאינם עניני אמונה ודת בלא שום התנצלות ותירוצים, וכן אסור לסייע בשום דבר לענין העקומעניזם שיש בזה משום איסור מסית אף שלא יתכוונו לזה וע"ז באנו על החתום להודיע דין איסור זה לכל הרבנים שומרי דת תורתנו הקדושה ועומדים בפרץ ביום תענית אסתר תשכ"ז.
See here for Professor David Berger's rebuttal of Rabbi Riskin's positions.
Here is a lot of material on the missionary problem in Israel.
