To start this discussion (one-sided thought it may be) I will quote a wonderful essay from the Dispatch Faith platform by Bruce Mattson. In context, he has just quoted N.T. Wright that the issue of the cross and gospel is fulfillment, not replacement, of the Jewish law and worship:
______
That last word is important. Christianity does maintain that national Israel’s covenant purposes and function have been put out of gear, retired, made obsolete in terms of redemptive-historical significance, but this is not what is often derided as “replacement” theology. Properly understood, it is fulfillment theology. Wright, again: “[T]o distinguish between a signpost and the building to which it points is not to say anything derogatory about the signpost” (175). Much less is it to say anything derogatory about Jewish people. That anyone would abuse these doctrines in service of antisemitism is an affront to the Christian gospel, which, Christians believe, is for Jews and Gentiles alike.
There is an insurmountable gulf, a stubborn impasse between Christianity and Judaism. The debate between Christians and Jews has been ongoing for 2,000 years and will certainly continue long into the future. But there is an extraordinary benefit to historic Christian understanding when it comes to modern-day questions surrounding the state of Israel. If a Christian comes to understand and believe that the state of Israel no longer has redemptive-historical significance, the question is then disentangled from needless and distorting religious baggage and put squarely back into its proper domain. Nobody asks the religious rationale for why we should be allies with Canada. That is a matter of international relations, not biblical exegesis. What is its form of government? Do its citizens enjoy civil liberties and the rule of law? Do they share our moral values? Believe in human dignity? Is there freedom of speech, religion, press, and association? These are the relevant considerations—and the Jewish people and their state would be only too happy to be judged by them instead of the double standards to which they’ve become sadly accustomed. Like the Heritage staffer, I am a Christian, a theologian even, and I agree that Christian Zionism in the form of Dispensational theology is a terrible reason to support Israel. Unlike her and her Gen Z compatriots, I can spot a non sequitur and therefore I can also see the many good reasons to support Israel.
______
The beginning of this debate was not the Nick Fuentes-Tucker Carlson brouhaha, but it became a "thing" from a comment made by a Catholic/Orthodox young woman at the Heritage Foundation meeting that turned into its own debacle. She said Christian Zionism is a heresy. I've been pondering that for a couple of weeks. Because my background is good ol' American evangelicalism/Baptist version, Dispensationalism is what I have been taught. However, I am not committed to it. It is to me one of a few different ways of reading the book of Revelation and other end-time prophecies. I do not believe, for example, in the rapture. I think it makes people paranoid and fearful and it is a misreading of I Corinthians 15 and Thessalonians. Recently I was visiting some friends and went to the bathroom. I came out of the bathroom and everyone was gone! Except their sweet dog. My first sense was--the rapture, and I'm left! They had just gone into the back yard. I have even more dramatic versions of this scenario. It was so ingrained into me as a young Christian that it is hard to sandpaper away from my psyche.
Anyway, the article does define this Christian Zionism thing pretty well and conclude wisely. Why Catholics or Orthodox believers would use rejection of this ideal to denigrate Israel is beyond me. I am pro-Israel, but . . . that doesn't mean we can be pro-everything they do. They make mistakes, lots of them. But an honest look at the history of "Palestine" shows there is more manipulation than fact in the left's claims against Israel as "an oppressive colonizer." That phrase is laughable.
Comments
Post a Comment