Category: Podcast

This piece was originally published at Patheos on March 5, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

This essay is more academic in tone than my usual blog posts. I trust my readers will find it an intriguing departure.

Is Christian Zionism biblical? I suppose it all depends on what you mean by biblical. Based on a literal reading of the biblical text in its historical context, one finds support for a Zionist reading of Scripture. Of course, this interpretive move is not accepted by everyone. It is not my aim to defend or critique this position, but to contend against the stance held by some within Christian Zionism that the present state of Israel is the realization of biblical prophecy from this hermeneutical perspective.

Still, what is Christian Zionism? It entails the belief that God will restore Israel’s ancient fortunes as a nation in the Promised Land. Accompanying this claim is the conviction that Messiah Jesus will rule from Jerusalem and the Jewish people will believe on him. One of the arguments that is put forth by Christian Zionists is that the ancient prophecies, such as what Christians take to be New Covenant promises fulfilled in Christ set forth in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 (See also Hebrews 8:8-12 where Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted and John 3:5-7 which alludes to Ezekiel 36:25-27, in my estimation), also talk about God bringing his people back to the land to dwell there permanently (Jeremiah 31:35-40; Ezekiel 36:1-24, 28-38). Based on a literal and historical reading, Christian Zionists claim that God’s people would have understood this to take place literally at a future point in history. Christians of this perspective often ask: if God does not fulfill his promises to Israel, how will we know if God will fulfill his new covenant promises for the church? Based on the presuppositions that support this position, the question makes sense.

What does not make sense is the position of some Christian Zionists that the church must do everything possible to bring about Israel’s return to the Promised Land. While the church should never curse Israel, and should always bless Israel (a claim made in keeping with God’s promise to Abram or Abraham in Genesis 12:3; we will return to nuance that point), a Christian Zionist claim of this kind is bound up with a view of the end times that maintains that God will inaugurate this state of affairs, and with no help from human hands. Moreover, on a pretribulational, premillennial reading of Scripture, the church will not even be present at the time of Zion’s eschatological emergence when Christ will reign over it. The church will be removed from this world prior to the great tribulation and Israel as a nation will be front and center once again in God’s kingdom purposes. When Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation, he alone will inaugurate his millennial kingdom and rule as God’s Messiah from Jerusalem. If one were to take a poll of Jewish people living in Israel today, one would hardly find universal support for this position. From this Christian Zionist reading of Scripture, the fulfillment of the ancient promises for Israel’s eschatological return as a nation has not yet occurred.

From a premillennialist perspective (of various stripes), the Lord will usher in the fulfillment of his eschatological kingdom apart from the working of the church, unlike with adherents of postmillennialism. Unfortunately, there are some Christian Zionists who are not satisfied with simply seeing Israel as having a special place in God’s eschatological program; they favor and support Israel in the attempt to facilitate the second coming of Christ. It is worth noting at this point that Dispensationalist theologian John S. Feinberg has cautioned against trying to speed the Messiah’s return through support of Israel: “Some are so excited about things to come, that they unfortunately think they can somehow bring them to pass sooner, rather than later—at least they want to try. Some well-meaning American Christians have even talked of sending rock and stone to help in rebuilding the Temple. If there is anything not needed in Israel it is more rock and stone. Even if there were such a need, contributing money to fill that need won’t make the end-times come any sooner than God has planned. Unless you happen to be the Anti-Christ, there is probably little you can do to make these events happen, and no one can move God’s sovereign timetable one moment faster or slower than he wants” (The quotation is taken from John Feinberg’s paper, “Dispensationalism and Support for the State of Israel,” {pg. 19}, which was presented at the “Christ at the Checkpoint” Conference, March 12–17, 2010, Bethlehem, Israel).

Another thing that does not make sense is Christian Zionists supporting Israeli hostilities toward the Palestinians. Yes, God blesses those who bless Israel. But not everything Israel currently does blesses God. Israel as a nation is hardly seeking the blessing of the Palestinians. According to God’s first promise to Abraham, all peoples will be blessed through Isaac’s seed, not cursed (See Genesis 12:1-3). Moreover, Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom God also blesses (See Genesis 17:19-21, Genesis 21:13, 17-18). Furthermore, many Palestinians are Christians, a point often lost on many Christian Zionists (Don Belt, “The Forgotten Faithful: Arab Christians,” in National Geographic, vol. 215, no. 6, June 2009). Those who believe in Jesus are sons and daughters of God, irrespective of their people group. In Galatians 3:28, we are told that in Christ there is no division between Jews and Gentiles as a result of Christ’s atoning work. As a result, all who believe in Jesus are children of the free woman of whom Paul speaks (Galatians 4:21–31), not just the descendants of Isaac who believe. As much as we should be concerned for all people and all Arabs, for all are blessed by God, our concern should be heightened for those who are fellow brothers and sisters in Jesus.

Speaking of Jesus, we find him often challenging his own Jewish people. Their national identity or ancestral connection to Abraham is not sufficient (John the Baptist makes a similar point—Matthew 3:9). He exhorts them to have the faith of Abraham (John 8:31–58). The Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:21–28) and Centurion (Matthew 8:5–13) are sterling examples of those who have the faith of Abraham. Those of Abraham’s faith are Abraham’s spiritual children, according to Paul (Galatians 3:7). We must also account for Jesus’ exhortation to the Jewish religious teacher who sought to test Jesus about what is required to inherit eternal life. Jesus tells him to love his neighbor as himself and shares with him the parable of a lowly Samaritan who exemplifies righteousness—caring for a man (likely a Jewish man) who was beaten and robbed and left for dead (Luke 10:25–37).

The point of referencing these biblical accounts is to point out that God loves all people and that God is no respecter of persons. While Israel is the people of promise, God blesses all people and calls everyone to account to believe like Abraham in the promised Messiah and to live like the unnamed Samaritan as people of the promise. To believe like Abraham entails living like the Samaritan. As Jesus the Messiah makes clear, my neighbor is not the person like me or the person I like, but the person in need—even my enemy.  I am responsible to care for him or her. Thus, as Christians, we are to promote concern for the well-being of all peoples and pray that the Jews and Palestinians will care deeply for one another.

Scripture specifies that Israel is to care for the foreigners in the land, granting them an inheritance and treating them as native-born (Ezekiel 47:21–22): How much more noteworthy is this text when the people in question—the Palestinians—have lived in the land for generations prior to the Jewish people’s return? Mark Bailey, President of Dallas Theological Seminary, maintains that “when Israel is restored to the land, they are to treat the aliens and strangers as if they were Israelites.” In this light, he challenges the modern state of Israel, as well as the Palestinian authority: “Do you know what is lacking in Israel? Just a minor, little plank in God’s program: treating others as you would like to be treated…The bottom-line principle is so powerful, so biblical: Israel needs to treat others as they would like to be treated. The Palestinian authority needs to treat Israel as they would like to be treated.  This applies to all peoples” (See Mark Bailey, “The Lord’s Land Policy in Israel,” in Veritas, vol. 2/3 {July 2002}, 4–5).

While Israel has a fundamental right to live in peace and security in the land, it must not take those rights from others—such as the confiscation of property and increase of settlements in violation of international law (See Donald Macintyre, “The Big Question: What are Israeli Settlements, and Why are They Coming Under Pressure?” in The Independent, Friday, May 29, 2009; John Glaser, “EU Report: Israeli Settlements Deliberate Strategy to Block Palestinian State,” in AntiWar.com, Wednesday, February 27, 2013; and “EU Report Slams Israeli Settlements, Calls for Economic Sanctions,” in RT.com, Wednesday, February 27, 2013) and building of walls and checkpoints that keep Palestinians from getting to their jobs and having access to healthcare.  (See Josef Federman, “Palestinian-Only Buses Set Off Uproar in Israel,” Time, Tuesday, March 5, 2013; and Karl Vick, “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace,” in Time, Thursday, September 2, 2010.)

Of course, the Jews are not the only ones to blame. The Palestinians have themselves also been guilty of a multitude of injustices against the Jewish people and Israel (For an article discussing abuses on both sides, including Israel’s expansion of Jewish settlements and expulsion of Palestinians from their homes coupled with the murder of members of an Israeli settler family by Palestinians, see “U.N. Official: Israel Engaging in Ethnic Cleansing,” in Reuters/Ynetnews.com). In fact, many Palestinians do not care about peace. Indeed, groups like Hamas have long been known for wishing Israel’s destruction as a nation (For a discussion of Palestinian indifference and/or hostility as reflected in the actions of Hamas and other groups such as Islamic Jihad, see Seth Freedman’s article, “Jerusalem Bus Bomb Will Hurt the Palestinian Cause,” in The Guardian, March 24, 2011; For a recent discussion of escalating violence, see Lawahez Jabari, “Israelis, Palestinians Tense as Violence Escalates Along Gaza Border”, in NBC, Thursday, November 15, 2012). No party is innocent. However, a very large segment of Evangelicalism tends to be one-sided in its criticism of the Palestinians and looks past the injustices committed against the Palestinians by Israel.

Many Evangelicals have a strange view of what it means to bless and not curse Israel. To do what Egypt did to Jacob’s descendants in enslaving them is “cursing” Israel. Cursing in the biblical sense is not refusing to be in favor of all that Israel does. In this sense, the prophets could have been accused of cursing Israel. Related to this point, many Christians fail to place “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem” in its biblical context (Psalm 122). Praying for the peace of Jerusalem is never separated from biblical justice (See Psalm 122:5), including concern for those who reside in Israel’s midst (Ezekiel 47:21–22). The best way that we can bless Israel is to pray and call for Israel and the Palestinians to live together peacefully as equals in the land. In that way, whether Christian Zionist or not, all of us who claim to be Christians can be biblical.

For further treatment of these issues from which some of this material is drawn, please see my article in Cultural Encounters. (“Why Should We Care?” in Cultural Encounters, vol. 7/1, {2011})

This piece was originally published at Patheos on March 3, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

Upon reading news on the sequester, you might not know whether to laugh or cry. There have been so many predictions, so much name-calling and finger pointing. I am not sure who to believe.

Two items stood out to me in a CBS News article on the sequester. First, according to the article, “Most entitlement programs are exempt.” The article goes on to say, “During the negotiations that produced the sequester, Democrats successfully pushed to exempt most forms of politically sensitive entitlement spending from the automatic cuts. As a result, Social Security, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, unemployment insurance, and food stamps will not see any reduction in funding. Medicare beneficiaries were also spared the axe, while Medicare providers will see only a 2 percent reduction in payments. Mr. Obama’s healthcare bill, some recall, also opted to slash payments to Medicare providers in lieu of targeting beneficiaries.” If correct, you might find this news to be a sign of relief, especially if you are one of the beneficiaries of these various programs.

Second, the article raises the question: does the sequester, as problematic as across the board cuts is, provide “an opportunity to target wasteful spending?” As stated in the article, some Republicans are grateful that, while problematic, the sequester “has begun a conversation” on what they take to be wasteful spending. Still, why couldn’t our federal government have engaged in constructive conversation earlier on what is wasteful as well as necessary spending and avoided the sequester in the first place?

It’s hard not to laugh and cry at the same time, when observing how our government is handling this crisis. It gets even worse, when you find that our nation’s leaders don’t necessarily know what to make of the sequester. According to NBC News, House speaker John Boehner has claimed that he doesn’t believe anyone quite knows how to resolve the sequester, if it’s going to hurt the economy, or how it will work.

Given that many people don’t know whether to laugh or cry over the sequester, is it any wonder that Saturday Night Live has gotten involved in the act?  According to a Saturday Night Live skit, Mrs. Obama will only do four television appearances a week from now on (down from seventy-five); air traffic control and border control will be severely impacted in comic if not cosmic proportions; astronauts will no longer have glass shields in their space helmets; three monkeys will be fired from the national zoo in Washington, D. C. and let loose on the streets of the nation’s capitol where they will wreak havoc; the list goes on.

Comic relief may be in order. But there is no time for finger pointing and hand-wringing. Whatever direction the conversation takes, the Democrats and Republicans will need to resolve their internal conflicts and work together to move us out of this mess. Inaction never leads to good governance. For our part, we will all need to learn to work harder together as citizens. The worst thing that can happen is for us to sequester ourselves from our nation’s problems and look out only for ourselves or our kind of people. We will need to make sure that whichever direction the conversation takes, we will advocate for those most disadvantaged; for example, cuts in public education will likely affect the most vulnerable student populations the most. Though the sequester will likely impact public education broadly, those who are more well to do can adjust more readily and provide other educational opportunities for their children. The poor seldom if ever have lobbyists in large part because they lack the necessary resources. How equitable is that in a democracy?

There is nothing funny about a country, whose more well-to-do citizens care only for themselves and who leave the most vulnerable to fend for themselves. Not only is there nothing funny about such inaction and indifference, but also there is nothing smart about it either: if we want to reduce poverty and build the economy (which everyone should affirm), we need to invest in the poor to benefit them and also so that they can help build our economy and help heal our nation.

This piece was originally published at Patheos on February 28, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

In “Jesus, Darwin and Donald Trump” (Part I), I conclude by saying that Evangelicalism may have been far more successful in generating support for the evolutionary supremacy of the market system than in challenging Darwin’s Origin of Species. There I was referring to Gordon Bigelow’s Harper’s Magazine claim that Evangelicals don’t simply assume the market’s gospel truthfulness but also promote it. In Bigelow’s estimation, Evangelicals have been responsible for cultivating the sense of scientific certainty around markets. If Bigelow’s assertion is correct, why might it be the case that Evangelicals have been responsible for cultivating this sense of scientific certainty around markets?

Could it be that many Evangelicals have bitten the big apple lie that individual effort alone leads to prosperity and the lack of prosperity reflects a lack of effort? Bigelow says of Evangelical convictions during the late 18^th and 19^th centuries that while salvation comes by conversion and faith for Evangelicals, nonetheless the suffering and pain of this mortal life was the result of original sin and bound up with our salvation. Evangelicals “regarded poverty as part of a divine program. Evangelicals interpreted the mental anguish of poverty and debt, and the physical agony of hunger or cold, as natural spurs to prick the conscience of sinners. They believed that the suffering of the poor would provoke remorse, reflection, and ultimately the conversion that would change their fate. In other words, poor people were poor for a reason, and helping them out of poverty would endanger their mortal souls” (Bigelow, “Let There Be Markets”).

Such a perspective may be bound up in part with a narrow reading of certain texts in Proverbs on such topics as laziness and sloth. While the Bible has nothing positive to say about sluggards, and exhorts people to work hard, the book of Proverbs provides us with general principles concerning how to live wisely, not statements of cause-effect relation for every situation. Proverbs 20:13 states, “Love not sleep, lest you come to poverty; open your eyes, and you will have plenty of bread” (ESV). How do you harmonize this type of exhortation with Scripture’s call to care for the poor? For example, Proverbs 29:7 says, “A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge” (ESV). Also, Proverbs 19:1 states, “Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool” (ESV; see also Proverbs 14:31, 19:17, 21:13, and 22:2). One cannot be a sluggard and be a person of integrity; however, many poor people are people of integrity. Would the harmonization of Scripture’s various teachings on this subject of poverty suggest to you that not everyone who is poor is in poverty because of laziness? Why or why not? Moreover, in view of Scripture’s call to extend mercy to people (for example, God acts graciously and mercifully toward the lost, as illustrated by the father’s care for his prodigal son in Luke 15:11-32), how should followers of Christ care for those who make poor decisions and end up in poverty?

By the way, might there not be rich people who are lazy and/or who are unwise in their use of money? Concerning the matter of being unwise, consider Jesus’ parable of the old fool in Luke 12:13-21. Contrast him with Jesus’ disciples in the very next section of the chapter. Jesus’ disciples are holy fools. The difference between old fools and holy fools is that while old fools clutch their wealth with greedy fists, holy fools hold their resources with open hands. The latter do so because they are free to give their possessions to the poor because God’s kingdom belongs to them (Luke 12:32-34). How do we discern if we are old fools or holy fools today?

While we will return to such questions as these in future blog posts, one thing is for certain: we need to grow in wisdom in how we approach free market capitalism. No economic system can claim a monopoly on Scripture; however, Christian Scripture must be brought to bear on all economic systems. Otherwise, the Donald Trump fish of the survival of the economic fittest (and not the Darwin fish of the biological or genetic fittest) will end up devouring Christians.