Review of the four part discussion between David Brickner and John Piper
Published in Christianity Today June 2012

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/search/?query=brickner+piper&x=0&y=0

First, I would like to acknowledge Christianity Today for publishing this dialogue. The issues at stake are multifaceted, highly complicated, and yet of great significance politically, theologically, and missionally. Secondly, I respect and admire the work of both Mr Brickner and Mr Piper. They both exemplify the heart of Christ and endeavor to follow His commands. Furthermore, I think we have all benefited from the spirit in which the dialogues were conducted. It is essential that men of God, whether they agree or not, present themselves with love and charity towards one another. Iron sharpens iron is certainly a biblical principle, but, unfortunately, too many Christians use their iron to pierce one another—and this not only fails to sharpen one’s own iron, but it makes a mess!

As for points of agreement. I affirm the overall sentiment that we the Church must maintain our witness to the Jews and to all the nations. Too often we have chosen a political or national entity at the expense of the Church and at the expense of our witness. I, also, affirm the statement made by Piper in his first article when he says, “the rights of nations should be decided by the principles of compassionate and public justice, not claims to national divine right or status.” Though there are several other points that I affirm, it is best to use my space to discuss the issues that I believe are of great concern.

First, I was disappointed with the overall discussion in that the opening editorial comment suggested that the four-part dialogue was going to address three questions: “Do Jews have a divine right to the Promised Land? Are American pastors dismissive of Arab Christians in Israel? Should Christians treat the Israeli-Palestinian dispute differently than other conflicts?” The problem is that it does not appear that the second question was addressed at all and the third question received only a passing remark or two. Instead, the dialogue seemed to focus primarily on the first question of Israel’s right to the land. Secondly, why was the second question limited to Arab Christians in Israel? What about the Arab Christians in Palestine?  As Christians we are called to care for our brothers and sisters in Christ throughout the world. Yet, most Christians in the west have no idea that there are Christians in Palestine. And there was nothing in these four articles that served to give a voice to the Church in Palestine.

There were also several theological matters reflected in this dialogue that I do not think evangelicals have adequately handled.

First, I believe that Brickner’s assertion that there remains an “ongoing election of Israel” (part 3) and Piper’s affirmation “So yes, David, I am with you: ‘Let us believe in the ongoing promises of God to the Jewish people,’” cannot be justified in the Scriptures in light of Jesus. The problem with these claims is that the NT is emphatic, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). To assert that the election of a race of people remains is to deny that the promise to that race was fulfilled in Christ. Hence, Israel is the “beloved son” (Gen 22:2, 12, 16), and Jesus is the “beloved son” (Matt 3:17); Israel is the “firstborn” (Exod 4:22), and Jesus is the “firstborn” (Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).

That Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel is why Paul can claim: “Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands—remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” (Eph 2:11-14). So, if there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Rom 10:12: “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all”), then how can one assert that a race remains special?’ To claim that there remains an ‘election’ for Israel as a race of people is to fail to acknowledge that in Christ there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile.

It is, also, important to note that the promises to Israel were to the ‘people of God’—who in the OT era were associated with ethnic Israel. But the ‘people of God,’ even in the OT era, were never identical with ethnic Israel. For the ‘people of God’ included some who were not Israelites (E.g., Ruth, Rahab). Furthermore, not all Israelites were members of the ‘people of God.’ For, many were disobedient. So then, even in the OT God’s people were never strictly tied to a race. Paul affirms this emphatically: “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants” (Rom 9:6-7).

When we look at the question of who are the ‘people of God’ in the NT, we note that Paul clearly says, ‘He is a Jew who is one inwardly” (Rom 2:29). Paul also affirms that Abraham is the ‘father of all who believe’ (Rom 4:11). By any reckoning, that makes all Christians, regardless of their ethnicity, the children of Abraham! Or, Israelites! That is, in the NT everyone who believes in Jesus is a descendant of Abraham—including any Jewish person who has the faith of Abraham, which is in Christ!  The point is that Paul clearly sees that the Church is included in the descendants of Abraham—this is what the grafting into the tree of Israel is all about (Rom 11). One only has to look at the word ‘inheritance’ in the NT to see that this word, which was central to the promises of the OT covenant related to land and family, is applied to Christians in the NT.

Not only then is Jesus the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, but through Jesus the NT people of God are included in the promises. Thus, we see that the role for Israel in the OT was to be a light unto the nations (Isa 42:6; 49:6). Yet, we know that Jesus claims that He is the light of the world (John 8:12; 9:5). And we see that Jesus tells His disciples that they are the light of the world (Matt 5:14). It is both. The fulfillment of the call and mission of Israel is first Jesus and then His followers. This is why, Isaiah 49:6, which is about Israel, is applied to Jesus (Luke 2:32), and it is also applied to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:47)!

Another questionable assertion is Piper’s claim that “Israel, as a people, will someday be converted to the Messiah” (part two). Now, in many ways we all hope that this is true (I certainly hope and pray that every Jew would come to know Christ. But, I also pray that everyone—Russian, Nigerian, Chinese, etc.—will come to know Christ). The problem with the suggestion that Scripture teaches that the Jews continue to have a special election fails to recognize that there are no racial distinctions within the body of Christ in the NT. To claim that Romans 9-11 asserts a mass conversion of all Israel is to misunderstand Paul. For, Jews have been converting to Christ for the last 2,000 years. Surely, Paul’s statement that “ all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26) has to include the fact that Jews have been coming to Christ throughout history, and not merely some mass conversion of Jews at the end.

I would also like to object to Brickner’s suggestion in his opening article that “it would appear the Scripture implies that Israel will indeed be back in the Land in unbelief prior to the return of Christ (see Ezekiel 37; Zechariah 12; Romans 11).” This is a serious misreading of Scripture. First, the Scriptures are very clear that the blessings of the covenant (e.g., the land) are the result of faithfulness to the covenant. This is the essence of the OT covenant (cf Deut 27-30). If Israel obeyed the covenant, then God would bless them with land and prosperity (Deut 28:1-15). If they disobeyed, God would curse them (Deut 27:11-26; 28:3-68). Any continued disobedience (God is gracious, so He may postpone the consequences in order that they may repent), would result in God expelling them from the land (Deut 28:34-37, 64-65). Deut 30:1-6 then relate that after Israel has been removed from the land, if, while they are in that foreign land (Deut 30:1), they repent (Deut 30:2), then God “will restore you from captivity” (Deut 30:3).

To suggest that Israel may be brought back to the land in fulfillment of the promises even though they have not repented is absolutely unjustifiable. This is a nowhere taught in Scripture and it is fundamentally opposed by the covenant of Deuteronomy! The blessings of the covenant are the result of obedience to the covenant. Now, granted, Brickner qualifies his claims by stating that “it would appear” and “the Scripture implies.”  But this is simply neither good scholarship, nor a good handling of the biblical text. The Scriptures neither “appear,” nor do they “imply,” that the Jews will come back to the land without repenting. In fact, the Scriptures absolutely state the opposite.

That Israel will come back to the land only after they repent is the foundational message of Scripture. It is this understanding that forms the basis of the Gospels pronouncement that the restoration of Israel is at hand and therefore one must repent! This is the essence of the proclamation of John the Baptist (Luke 3; Mark 1). Thus, Simeon and Anna were looking for the restoration of Israel (Luke 2:25, 38). And all these hopes and promises are fulfilled in Jesus who is the fulfillment of all God’s promises (2 Cor 1:20). Therefore, the restoration of Israel is through Jesus!

Furthermore, Brickner proposes several Scriptures in support of his claim that Israel will come back to the land prior to repenting (Ezekiel 37; Zechariah 12; Romans 11). But, these Scriptures not only do not affirm his thesis, they are clearly fulfilled by Christ according to the NT. The Ezekiel 37 (in particular Ezek 37:24-28) passage, which Brickner lists is cited in the NT in a couple of places. First, Paul cites the passage in application to the Christians in Corinth (2 Cor 6:14-18)! Then, John cites the same passage in reference to the people of God in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:3-7). To cite this text and claim that it is awaiting the return of Israel to the land fails to recognize that according to the NT the restoration has happened through Jesus and that it is awaiting its ultimate fulfillment in the New Jerusalem! In the same way, Zechariah 12 is fulfilled in Jesus. For, Zech 12:10 is cited in John 19:37 in application to Jesus.

Finally, I would like to contend with Brickner’s claim that “Present day anti-Semitism is proof that Israel remains at the nexus of the cosmic conflict between God, who keeps his promises, and Satan” (part 3). (Now, of course, we condemn anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the Church has a poor track record of anti-Semitism—for which must repent!) First, in response I would note that the NT never claims that Satan is at war with Israel. The NT, does, however, consistently claim that Satan is waging war with the NT people of God. This is clear in the book of Revelation when it says that “the dragon [Satan—Rev 12:9] was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (Rev 12:17). Thus, Satan is not waging war with Israel but with the Church—the people of God. Why would Satan wage war with any nation or people group that is already aligned against God? (this statement is not anti-Semitic. I am merely affirming that all peoples who have not joined with Christ are against Him—Matt 12:30).

Furthermore, history has demonstrated that Satan continues to war with the people of God. The Church continues to suffer persecution throughout the world today. In fact, I just received an email from a good friend of mine who is a professor in Nigeria who informed me that 50 Christians were just killed in Jos, Nigeria. Surely, according to Brickner’s reasoning, this confirms that the Church ‘remains at the nexus of the cosmic conflict.’ (of course, Brickner’s argument could be used to justify any nation or race that has suffered mass persecution as the nexus: e.g., the Kurds, . . . .). That the Church is the center of this war is confirmed by both history and Scripture.  (Now, again I am not in any way suggesting that the anti-Semitism that has seen the persecution of the Jews in history, climaxing in the holocaust, should be dismissed. These are grave travesties against humanity and must be condemned. I am indeed grieved to think that Christians have either outrightly supported the persecution of the Jews—such as during the crusades—or they have remained mostly silent—such as during the holocaust. The Church must condemn anti-Semitism and speak up for all who are oppressed).

Our theology must center on Christ! When we do this we see that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promises. These promises are then continued in the present by means of the Spirit through the people of God. This is why the manner in which we treat the people of God is the manner in which we treat Jesus (Matt 25:31-46). To suggest that any nation enjoys some kind of privileged status before God is to fail to understand Jesus as the fulfillment and that through Him He has abolished all racial, social, ethnic, and gender differences. Such a theology is of grave concern because of the biblical stress that how one treats the people of God (Israel/the people of God in the OT; and Christians/the people of God in the NT) is the determining factor in demonstrating that we are true Christ followers (they will know we are Christians “if you have love for one another” John 13:35) and it is the basis for judgment (Matt 25:31-46).

With all this being said, please allow me to close by reiterating that we are to love all people. We, the Church, must let our light shine to the world. We, indeed, hope that all men come to know the love of Christ. We must, however, demonstrate our love to those of our own household first. This household transcends all ethnic, social, and gender boundaries.

In Christ

Rob Dalrymple, PhD

We thought we would take on another easy question: ‘What about women in ministry?’. Admittedly, the question is multi-faceted and the issues are complex. (I recognize for some that the issues are not complex: for some the Bible says that women should not be in authority—though many define authority differently, which affirms my point that the issues are complex—and so it is black and white). The complexities include at the most basic level whether or not women can teach in the Church at all (including the teaching of children; youth; or, adults—whether that be women only, or both women and men). The issues also include whether or not women can have authority in the Church and at what level (including authority over children; youth; adults—whether it be women only, or both women and men).

Before we look at the primary biblical text in question (1 Tim 2:12-14), allow me to digress and give a brief background of my own journey with regard to these issues. I came to faith in Christ in a wonderful, but very conservative, church environment. As a result the Bible was read as very black and white (aside from the red letters of course!). The Bible lays it out very concretely—as I was taught—women cannot ‘teach or have authority over a man’ (1 Tim 2:12). Over the years two things began to cause me to wonder if this was not too simple. (Now I have always held a very high view of Scriptural authority, and still do).

First, I had several encounters with women in higher education. On a few occasions I had the privilege of having a female classmate during my post-graduate work. I noticed that she was much brighter and had a keener sense of Scripture than most of the men in the class. Furthermore, I found myself studying various scholarly articles and books that were written by women. I wondered to myself at the oddity of it all. These female scholars are very gifted. They are great writers and communicators. And they appear from their writings to have a deep passion for the Lord. Yet, ironically, what they write and communicate can be used to teach and train leaders and pastors, but at the same time, they themselves are not allowed to speak from a pulpit on a Sunday in many churches. This just didn’t seem to mesh for me.

A second catalytic factor that caused me to delve more deeply into the Scripture was the fact that I have clearly witnessed women in the Church who are quite gifted in a variety of ways. Some of these women are high level executives that are quite gifted at running and managing multi-million dollar corporations. Yet, many of them are suppressed in today’s churches and their voices are not heard simply because of their gender.

Now, I fully understand that this does not have to be this way. That is, women can thrive in environments in which there gifts and passions are utilized, where they are affirmed and not suppressed, and yet they are still restricted for cultural reasons from having full authority in a local church. After all, when we look at the Church of the NT we find that women held prominent roles/positions in the Church and thrived even though they were restricted from having pastoral authority: e.g., Priscilla,  Pheobe,  Philip’s daughters,  among others. Jesus seemingly allowed women as disciples.  Furthermore, women were prominent in the Gospel accounts. Etc. Yet, at the same time Paul forbade them from holding the office of ‘pastor over men’ (1 Tim 2:12). This demonstrates that women can simultaneously be used effectively and esteemed in numerous ways in the Church, all the while being withheld from holding high offices in the Church. I get that.

But, we must also acknowledge that we don’t see women at the time of Paul writing commentaries, scholarly articles, being esteemed professors,  and even presidents of seminaries! So, the question remains, ‘how can we allow women to do such things in our modern academic environment and then tell that same woman that she cannot teach on Sunday?’ She can teach our emerging pastors in the colleges and seminaries Monday through Friday, but she cannot teach our congregations on Sunday. This is a fundamental difference between our setting and the setting of the NT.

You see, the irony is much deeper. Many young pastors and teachers write their messages based on outlines, lectures, etc., that they had from their time in formal education. So, if the notes that this young pastor used on a given Sunday came from a lecture that a female professor gave to him, that would be okay: as long as he gave the sermon? He can tell everyone what he learned from her, but she can’t deliver the same sermon (even though she is more qualified and perhaps more gifted to do so)?

Now, in order to gain more consistency in these matters, one option would be to eliminate women from positions in higher education. But, these women are highly qualified and quite gifted at what they do. We would be essentially asking them to not utilize gifts that God has given them. And we would be restricting in a manner in which Scripture does not forbid.

But what about Scripture? Fair enough. We still need to contend with the Scriptures. Space will not allow me to delve into all the texts, nor even every nuance of 1 Tim 2. But a good look at the primary text in question, 1 Tim 2:12-14,  is necessary. Here we find the command of Paul that: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12).

Now we immediately recognize that this is not an absolute dictum forbidding all teaching activities of women for several reasons. For one, we see women doing just that throughout the NT. Priscilla is teaching Apollos in Acts 18. Philip’s four daughters are prophesying in Acts 21. And in 1 Cor 11:5, Paul stresses that women must have their heads covered when praying and prophesying in Church (note: the act of prophesying entails teaching).

Also, we must observe that the twin prohibitions of ‘teaching’ and ‘having authority’ in 1 Tim 2:12 appear to entail the primary functions of a pastor. Thus, while not absolutely forbidding a woman from teaching in every setting, Paul is forbidding them from the role of a pastor or church leader ‘over men’. This would suggest that a women preaching on a Sunday morning to the congregation may well be permitted even by Paul; for though they are performing a task that a pastor performs they are not exercising his position as pastor and leader of the flock. That is, the text forbids them from two things that together constitute the position/office of what we term ‘pastor’. This does not mean that a women cannot perform the task of teaching—which is why we see women teaching at various times in the NT.  To suggest that women cannot preach on Sunday, but yet they can present the same message to a classroom on Wednesday is quite silly. What is the difference between a women teaching a message on a Wednesday and her giving the same message on a Sunday morning? She is performing the task but not the office of a pastor. This distinction is quite significant. Paul allowed the former and forbade the latter.

Furthermore, we should also note that Paul seemingly restricts women from having this role of authority (pastor: i.e., ‘teaching and having authority’) not absolutely, but only over ‘a man.’ For many, and I would concur, this means that women are permitted to function and serve as children’s pastors, or, even pastors of women. That this holds true finds support in Paul’s letter to Titus in which he counsels Titus on how to relate to younger and older men and women.  Propriety, even in Paul’s day, suggests that women are better suited at addressing and ministering to women.

It is at this juncture that most evangelical churches would actually be in agreement with me. They have no problem with women being in authority over women and children. Some refuse to allow a women to preach on Sunday, but, as we have shown, that does not appear to be what Paul is forbidding here. At this point, we could stop and most everyone, even the quite conservatives, will be content, though not necessarily in full agreement, with what has been said. Paul seemingly allowed women to teach in various settings and to be in authority over women and children. But, let’s look at the prohibition of women in 1 Tim 2:12-14 to see if there is more.

What we notice is that Paul’s prohibition of women from occupying the office of pastor over men is justified by Paul in 1 Tim 2:13-14. Here Paul gives two reasons for his prohibition.  His first justification is that Adam was formed first (2:13). This is a reference to what is called ‘primogeniture’ (basically: the order of birth or creation). Paul is saying that since Adam was first in creation, we are going to establish a rule that man is to be first in the Church. Now this appears very concrete and very conclusive. It remains true today that Adam was formed first—in fact, it will remain true forever. Therefore, Paul’s prohibition appears to be eternally validated. Thus, in order to argue that Paul’s prohibition of women being pastors over men was culturally conditioned (that is, it is not necessarily the result of absolutely binding and eternally fixed factors), one would need to contend that the law of primogeniture is not absolute.

Well, it is not. There are numerous occasions in which the one who was first was not given the privilege forever: Isaac over Ishmael; Jacob over Esau; Ephraim over Manasseh; Moses over Aaron; David is the youngest in his family, etc. Furthermore, primogeniture is culturally bound in that it was necessary to impose in a culture that was intimately tied to land transfers and the allotment of inheritance. This was important in the ancient world. For, it was necessary to pre-determine who was the inheritor of the land and such. In such cultures it was often essential to not split up the farms equally among all surviving heirs as this would have been detrimental to the long term survival of the clan. In such societies, then, it was natural to choose the oldest—since the oldest was more likely mature enough to care for the family; and younger siblings may even have been in need of care themselves. Choosing the oldest as a rule also eliminated/minimized the potential for sibling rivalry. These pragmatic factors made primogeniture a part of the fabric of the biblical world. But, as such, they do not necessarily translate to our contemporary situation. Thus, to say that Paul was saying men can be pastors and women cannot based on an absolute fact that Adam was made first, fails to recognize that it was not based on this absolute, but on a culturally accepted practice of primogeniture. Thus, for Paul, this was a valid reason. But it was a reason that was culturally conditioned. And one that does not necessarily translate into all cultures for all time.

The second reason that Paul states to justify his restriction of women from the office of pastor over men is that Eve was the one who was deceived (1 Tim 2:14). Again it appears that Paul has provided for us a theologically grounded basis for his rule—the fact is that she was deceived first. Paul appears to be setting forth the fact that Eve, and the women of his day, were more susceptible to deception.

This is an important point. But, before we look at the nature of this assertion we must reflect on the fact that for Paul the pastor must keep watch over the flock. In doing so, one of the most central roles of the pastor is to watch over the teaching and beliefs of the flock and to guard them from deception (note: the devil’s name is ‘the deceiver’: this is one of his primary weapons!). Therefore, whether it be women, or anyone else for that matter, who are more subject to giving in to false teaching and deception, Paul lays forth an important rule that the pastor must not be one who is more susceptible to deception (I’ll return to this in a moment).

Now, we must ask why it is that Paul deemed that women are more susceptible to deception? For a while, I myself concluded that since Paul stated that women are more susceptible to deception, then it must simply be so. However, more recent studies have revealed (beyond the fact that I was naïve among other things) that there are several causes that make a person more susceptible to deception. Among these factors are such things as age (children are more easily deceived than adults), experience, intelligence, and education (the more educated the less likely to be deceived).  Note that gender is not a factor! Thus, Paul was not saying that women by nature are more naturally deceived. Why then did Paul say that women are more easily deceived? Considering all the factors that contribute to a person being subject to deception, the only factor that would have been generally, and perhaps almost universally true of women at the time of Paul, is that they were not privileged to the same levels of education as men. As a result, women were, generally speaking, not qualified to serve as pastors.

But, as access to education is made more available to all, including women, then we may conclude that women may well qualify to serve as pastors over men—and many of them are quite qualified. That is why we can have women as scholars, professors, and university presidents today, yet they essentially did not serve such roles in Paul’s day. Paul wasn’t forbidding a woman who lectured on Wednesday from teaching on Sunday. The educational preparation wasn’t there. Now that it is, it stands to reason that Paul would have been willing to allow women to teach the same message on Sunday that they did on Wednesday and to allow them the authority to lead the entire church.

What does this all mean? First off, even if we take Paul’s prohibition as an absolute restriction that excludes women from the office of pastor over men, I do not see any reason why women cannot function as pastors over women and children, nor why a women cannot teach or preach. But, it also does not appear that Paul has given us a timeless edict. He has laid down a principle that cannot be ignored: namely, that whoever serves as a pastor must be educated and prepared so that they are not easily deceived. This would apply to men and women. Anyone who is not educated well enough is more subject to deception (modern studies have confirmed this to be one of the leading factors for deception among adults), and therefore should not be in the office of pastor in the Church. This corresponds with Paul’s list of qualifications in 1 Tim 3 for pastors: including the fact that they cannot be a ‘new convert’ (1 Tim 3:6) and that they must be ‘able to teach’ (1 Tim 3:2). For those who are new converts will be susceptible to deception as they are likely not educated in the teachings of the Church. And those who cannot teach means that they are not qualified with the knowledge of the Word, which also would make them more susceptible to deception.

Why stress this point? Because some of these very churches who adamantly restrict women from being pastors and teachers in the Church based on 1 Tim 2, have men in these positions who are not qualified based on the fact that they lack the education necessary to protect the flock from the deceptions of the devil. The principle, as Paul has set forth in this passage, is that anyone who is more easily deceived cannot serve as pastors and teachers over the Church. Paul simply eliminated all women because in his day they were, generally speaking, not privileged to the education necessary to qualify them for such positions. But, in chapter 3, as we have noted, when he lists the qualifications for pastors, he notes that men who are not educated (i.e., new converts and not able to teach) are similarly excluded from the office of pastor over men.

In all, women have tremendous gifts and callings from the Lord. These gifts and callings are essential to the full growth and edification of the body! It is time that we all recognize them for who they are and what they can bring to the table!

Travelling to the Holy Land

One of our primary convictions is that people must see the situation in the Holy Land for themselves. People will banter about their opinions about what is happening, which themselves are often the result of preconceptions, and will not really grasp the nature of the situation until they have seen it themselves.

So, we are asking two things from you. First, pray for those who are going. We plan to regularly provide trips to the land to see for ourselves what is happening. So there is always some group that is either planning on travelling soon or is already in the land. Pray for them. They will see many things that will require a lot of processing. Pray also that they will know what to do with what they have experienced.

Secondly, consider going yourself. Some of you may not think it is necessary. Well, it is! God’s people are crying out for help. God always hears the cries of His people. And when He does, He always calls His people to reply (e.g., He called Moses when He heard the cries of the Israelites in Egypt; Exod 2-3). Ignorance is not an option. We must first get informed. Then we must support the people of God. For some of you, that means praying; others must give and support those who are going; and others must go!

Out trips are being led by the fabulous team with the Telos Group. I have acquaintance with many people and groups who are leading trips to the Land and I am convinced that the Telos Group is the absolute best group to work with. They are extremely well connected and will allow us to meet leading figures on all sides. We will meet leading Israelis and Palestinians, including secular leaders, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim leaders. We cannot know what is truly happening unless we hear all the sides of the story. Our trips will make this possible.
If you want more details, please contact us.

Guest Blogger
Gary M. Burge, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College.
Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding (EMEU) Advisory Board

Are we all becoming – as Time Magazine suggests (Aug 30, 2010) – Islamophobic?  According to one of their recent polls, 46% of us believe that Islam is more likely than other faiths to inspire violence against nonbelievers.  34% of us don’t want a Mosque in the neighborhood.  According to an August 19 Washington Post poll, 30% of conservative Republicans who dislike Obama claim that he is a Muslim.  Is “Muslim” the new political slur?

I’ve just returned from two Muslim countries in the Middle East.  And as exposure goes, I’ve probably worked alongside more Muslims than I ever expected I would.  I’m in the Middle East at least once each year, usually visiting multiple countries.  I belong to an “Evangelical-Muslim” discussion group which meets annually and hosts 30 scholars from each side for 3 days of interfaith discussion.  These are pious, brilliant, generous Muslim scholars whom I count as my friends.  And when a topic like “Islamophobic America” comes up, I share intense personal emails with them.

But I’ve also come away from the Middle East confused this summer.  In August I was speaking before a group of Muslim university students who wanted to talk about Islam and the West.  Some were progressive and thoughtful; others were less so.  For some time, a dialogue with a couple of young men ran like this:  “We pity you Christians.”  “Why?”  “Because what Christianity teaches is wrong.”  “But what do we do if some Christians say that Islam is wrong?”  “Then they are wrong.”  “But wait, the point is that two people might both claim to be right – and we have to ask: can we live together and accept each other or will we destroy each other?”  “If something is wrong it must be stopped.”  “So what do you propose we do to people who don’t believe in Islam?”  “Eventually people who teach wrong things should be arrested.” 

Before I had a chance to unleash my own rhetorical broadside (a daring thing in itself considering I was in a Muslim city), the entire other half of the room exploded along with the Muslim professor.  The Arabic flew so fast and furious my translator could barely keep up.  You can’t possibly mean that!  What you say is not Islam!  What you say is offensive!  But I could see that the target of this barrage was not persuaded.  His eyes narrowed.  He went silent.  Later when we dismissed, a circle of five women students cornered him for more punishing debate.

I expect this sort of rigid position among those who are not educated.  For instance, when I took a taxi home from Chicago’s O’Hare airport, my driver was from Pakistan.  Another backseat conversation:  “Where have you been?”  “The Middle East.”  “I wish I lived in a Muslim country.”  “Is it hard to live here?”  “Yes.  Too much wickedness.”  “What’s an example?”  “Bikinis.”  “Anything else?”  “People don’t follow Islam.”  “But maybe they believe in something else.”  “They’re wrong.”  “What should we do with people that disagree with Islam?”  “They should be punished.”  “You mean the police should arrest them?”  “Yes.”

I felt jangled.  And immediately I dashed off an email to a Muslim scholar – a good friend – who lives in Canada.  He wrote me: “The reality is that Muslims, like any faith community, have a wide spectrum of backgrounds, influences, mentalities, and other things that define a “religious” human being.”  Of course; I knew that I but needed a reminder:  every religion has types that represent only one place in the religious spectrum. 

During the week of my return home the mosque furor in New York was filling the headlines.  Here were progressive, modern Muslims (led by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan, Executive Director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement) who were Sufis (think Muslim Mennonites), working with the local Jewish leadership, and wanting to build a community center modeled after the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan.  They found 9/11 to be offensive and wanted to do something good in response.  And Americans were condemning them.  Some were using the same religious slogans I’d heard in the Middle East from the Muslim side of this debate.

Through these experiences and my many conversations with Muslims, a handful of new ideas have surfaced that perhaps we will need to explore.

First, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and intolerance may have more to do with cultural resistance against the west than with religion per se.  Religion is a tool – often used by many – to express dislike of “the other.”  I doubt that when the Taliban killed those medical workers in N. Afghanistan this summer, they were doing it “because they were missionaries.”  The Taliban saw them as a projection of western/American influence and this was their barbaric way of fighting back.  These Taliban have as much in common with Islam as the KKK has in common with Christianity.  For some Muslim scholars, religious violence has been characteristic of “post colonial” societies.  They reach for ways to express resistance.  Many do it violently.

Second, like Christianity Islam is deeply variegated.  There are fundamentalists who are shockingly intolerant and there are progressives who have chosen to live alongside others peacefully.  In discussions with Muslim scholars, I’ve asked what to do with Quranic verses describing conquest of non-believers.  They open the Bible to the book of Joshua and pose the same hermeneutical problem to me:  Do these texts still define how you treat non-believers?  Touché.  But tolerance is a virtue well-pursued by each of us.  My running theory has been that education helps enormously.  But I now think that tolerance and diversity are two of the good gifts the west has given the world.  Not that we embrace this faithfully ourselves (think: Serbia, Ireland or Selma).  I have Muslim friends in Toronto, West Amman and Ras Beirut who would find the Muslim faith of some parts of rural west Pakistan alarming. 

Third, I am still unsettled about one feature of this discussion.  Indeed we must do our part to understand Islam more accurately.  And we have to make a place for Muslims – all 2.5 million of them – here in the United States.  But I also yearn to hear my Muslim friends speak up for parallel tolerance for Christians living in Muslim countries.  Privately Middle Eastern Christians will confide that they have enormous struggles just living as Christians in their countries.  To build a church or school – even to avoid employment discrimination – are problems few will discuss openly.  When will Christians in the Muslim world enjoy the same freedoms Muslims in America call for today?  Is it not ironic that we are discussing the freedom to build a mosque in central New York when building a major new church in Damascus, Cairo, Tripoli or Riyadh would be unimaginable?

I am not hopeful that my Pakistani taxi driver or narrowly educated fundamentalist students in the Middle East will appreciate the nuances of these three concerns.  They probably think that tolerant, progressive Muslims have lost the true faith.  I simply remember that circle of five young Muslim women – wearing their hijab (head scarves) proudly – who were unrelenting as they backed one angry young man into the corner.  They understood what must be done (and who must do it) to help this conversation and they understood who had to do it.

No. This website does not espouse ‘replacement theology’. What is Replacement Theology? Good question. I find that most everyone who uses this term has no real understanding of what it means. Often these people don’t address the arguments, such as we have presented, but instead dismiss these arguments because they supposedly represent ‘replacement theology.’

Replacement theology teaches that since Israel did not fulfill their calling, God chose to replace them with the Church. We don’t believe this because this position represents a fundamental misreading of the Bible. It is actually quite similar to Zionism in that both the Zionist and the Replacement theologian look at the NT and see a radical disjunction between the OT and the NT. That is, neither viewpoint understands the NT as the continuation of the OT story and the fulfillment of it.

This is a very poor way of reading Scripture. The NT is clearly written to show that it not only continues the story of the OT, but that the OT story finds its fulfillment in the NT. It is fundamental to the Scriptures and the character of God that He has been faithful to His promises to Israel through Jesus. This is the book of Romans (and the entire NT for that matter)! See our post on “Blessing Israel: Reading the OT in light of the NT”

So, the viewpoints represented in the essays on this website suggest that the NT maintains a high level of continuity with the OT. This can be seen in the abudance of OT citations throughtout the NT. The old saying, that the “OT is the NT concealed; and the NT is the OT revealed” stands true. Ironically, the views of the Replacement theologians have far more in common with the Zionist than the views held here.

I am somewhat amazed by the apathy of many in the Church towards matters of injustice and in particular the injustices with the Israel/Palestine conflict. Some response with the supposition that this conflict has been going on for thousands of years (not true—it goes back no longer than 1948): so, these Christians inquire, why should we think that we can solve it? Others suggest that we should only be involved in spiritual matters and not politics.

How might we respond?

Wow! Can we really sweep this entire issue under the carpet and assume that God will allow us to remain uninvolved since we are attending to spiritual matters? (ironically many who put forth these sentiments advocate vociferously for various political stances that take a very strong line towards this issue. So, on the one hand, they suggest that we must stay out of politics, and, on the other hand, they radically support a political position that has major irons in the political fire). Allow me to note three points in response.

First, the suggestion that this is a political issue that should not affect the Church, which should be engaged in spiritual matters, is a statement of profound misunderstanding. This conception is reflective of a modernist worldview that has greatly impacted the church’s thinking in many such ways. We have dealt with this in other essays so we will not take the space here to do so. But let it be noted that this is a highly unbiblical, secular worldview that seeks to place into separate realms, in manners that contravene Scripture, the physical and the spiritual (this is the same reasoning used by the secular scientific world that suggests that science and religion are separate spheres that do not overlap. The secular world might be able to reason this way, but the Church cannot).

Secondly, the Bible is very political. The Gospel of Mark begins, “the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). This opening is a highly politicized statement that confronted Rome in every regard. In 9 BC, the word gospel was used to announce the birth of Caesar Augustus: ‘a son of a god’ (Augustus’ adopted father, Julius Caesar, was proclaimed god after his death; making Augustus ‘a son of a god’). Mark instead contends that Jesus’ birth is the Gospel of ‘THE Son of THE God.’ Mark’s opening is a direct assault on the claims of the Roman emperor. And wasn’t Jesus crucified for being a King! To say that His kingdom is not of this world, also fails to understand the nature of His Kingdom; which is one in which all the kingdoms of the world will bow (Dan 2 and Dan 7). We could go on with Moses before the Pharaoh; Daniel before the Kings of Babylon; Paul before Caesar, all of whom confronted the political powers of the day on behalf of the people of God. Shall we now reject Martin Luther King Jr as someone who transcended his spiritual responsibilities? Or what about William Wilberforce? Was not their political engagement the means by which these men, and countless others, demonstrated their witness to the world. That is, they attended to spiritual matters precisely by confronting the political powers.

Martin Luther King said, “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority. If the church does not participate actively in the struggle for peace and for economic and racial justice, it will forfeit the loyalty of millions and cause men everywhere to say that it has atrophied its will. But if the church will free itself from the shackles of a deadening status quo, and, recovering its great historic mission, will speak and act fearlessly and insistently in terms of justice and peace, it will enkindle the imagination of mankind and fire the souls of men, imbuing them with a glowing and ardent love for truth, justice, and peace. Men far and near will know the church as a great fellowship of love that provides light and bread for lonely travelers at midnight.”

Thirdly, this is a Church issue, in which Christians, who are caught on both sides, are suffering greatly—especially as a result of the occupation of Palestine. I have noted previously (see my opening presentation during the conference “Christianity in the Middle East” on our website www.determinetruth.com) that in the Gospel of Matthew the phrases ‘brothers of mine’ and ‘least of these’ are used always for followers of Jesus—indeed the phrase ‘Least of these’ in Matthew without exception refers to disciples (Matt: 10:42; 18:6, 10, 14; 5:19; 11:11) and ‘brothers of mine’ throughout Matthew always indicates followers of Christ (5:22-24, 47; 7:3-5; 12:48-50; 18:15, 21, 35; 23:8; 28:10). From this I believe that we should conclude that Jesus is affirming that whatever we do to Christians we do to Him. And if we do not meet the needs of the Church, then we are not meeting the needs of Christ! It is at this point that I don’t think that Christians have you seen the force of what Jesus is saying. The point is that when Jesus returns, according to Matthew’s account, He will separate the sheep from the goats and the primary factor as to which side we are on is how we treat the body of Christ (this of course does not mean that our treatment of unbelievers is irrelevant; only that our primary responsibility is towards the body of Christ).

This is a fundamental principle in Scripture. For example, in 1 John we see the reiteration throughout the letter that we must love ‘one another’ (1 John 3:10, 11, 14, 16, 23—throughout this section John clearly has the Church in view). This point also corresponds with the message of Revelation. For, in Revelation one of the major themes is that the dragon wages war against God (Rev 12-13; esp 13:6). He does so, not by fighting God, for that would be futile, but by attacking God’s children (Rev 13:6)! And, in Revelation, God’s children are not the race of ethnic Jews, but they are the followers of Jesus. Hence, Rev 12 says that the dragon pursued the “offspring of the woman”, who are then defined as those “who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (Rev 12:17).

So then we must decide if we are to be involved in what is indeed an issue with political implications. To do so in favor of justice and the Christians who are suffering is to side with Christ. To not do so, or to advocate for the oppressor, is to side with the dragon. We have no choice here!

Furthermore, it is also a Church issue because the Church has been involved in politics! Evangelical Christians and their view that Israel is the chosen people of God whom we must bless at all costs (see my posts ‘Do we bless Israel unquestioningly’ and ‘Loving Israel means to hold them to standards of Justice’), have influenced greatly US foreign policy on this matter.  That is, we have been involved in politics by supporting Israel unquestioningly and by affecting US foreign policy in the Middle East. US tax payers have given over $100 billion to the state of Israel. We are largely funding this conflict. The nature of a democracy is such that the ultimate responsibilities for the nation’s actions lie with the people. As a result we are engaged politically and we are supporting the injustices against the Palestinians, some of whom are Christians.  Now, we have rightly condemned the Palestinians when they commit crimes against Israel. But why don’t we condemn Israel when they commit atrocities against humanity? Because we are not to be engaged in political matters but only spiritual matters? I am not sure that I would encourage anyone to espouse such a notion.

Therefore, we must stand up for our brothers and sisters in Christ and care for them. Period. Always. To not do so is to deny the Gospel. To not stand up for our brothers and sisters in Christ is to stand opposed to Jesus. For whatever we do to His followers we do to Him.

To say that we cannot bother ourselves with politics is both naïve and in this instance dangerous.

The answer to the title of this article should be clear. We should not bless any nation, or even any person for that matter, unquestioningly. We don’t bless our own children when they do wrong. So, why should we bless a nation regardless of their behavior? Furthermore, to bless our own children even when they do wrong is to hate them. For to do so, would be to teach them that they can do wrong without consequences. This is not love.

Love acknowledges that one is made in the image of God and knows better. We don’t hold people accountable for their actions only when we deem that they didn’t know better, or that they were unable to do better. But the nation of Israel knows better and they are able to do better. Thus, regardless of our view of Israel and prophecy we cannot simply endorse unquestioningly the behavior of Israel. To suggest that ethnic Israel is still a part of God’s plan and, thus, we must bless them regardless of what they do is fundamentally against Scripture.

For one, the prophets taught that election alone was not sufficient, but that they must do justice. Israel was never immune from God’s judgment: ‘ You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth; Therefore, I will punish you for all your iniquities’ (Amos 3:2). The Israelites who were not obedient to God’s law were not blessed. Thus, the unfaithful Israelites died in the wilderness. And those who didn’t put blood on their doorposts also lost their firstborn. This is the entire basis for the OT covenant—and the essence of any covenant relationship. If Israel wants to receive the blessings of the covenant then they must obey the covenant (Deut 27-30).

Thus, if Israel doesn’t obey the covenant then they will never receive the blessings of the covenant; but only the curses! This is fundamental to the OT and the nature of God. “But if you do not obey Me and do not carry out all these commandments, if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant, I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up. And I will set My face against you so that you shall be struck down before your enemies; and those who hate you shall rule over you, and you shall flee when no one is pursuing you. If also after these things, you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins” (Lev 26:14-18). (we could cite dozens of verses like this).

Leviticus goes on the say (as does Deuteronomy; which forms the basis for the books of Joshua-Kings), that the land will ‘spew’ them out if they are unfaithful (Lev 18:28; 20:22). Now, if God kicked them out of the land when they did not obey His covenant, which included justice to the foreigner (Lev 19:33 “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong”), then why should we turn our face from what modern day Israel is doing?—or even attempt to justify it by the supposed fact that they are God’s chosen people? God never unquestioningly blesses Israel regardless of their behavior: so why should anyone suggest that suddenly we must do so? In fact, if we love Israel we will not let them get away with injustice, because will punish them.

Secondly, even if we thought that Israel was to be restored to the land, we must also recognized that they are still to be held to standards of justice. This is unquestioningly the message of the prophets. They repeatedly affirm, “Is this not the fast which I choose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free, And break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, And bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?” (Isa 58:6-7). If a prophet were to hear his people respond, ‘But, Israel is God’s chosen race!’ I think that would have torn out their hair and cried!  For, even if they are still God’s people, then this would only serve the point more forcefully: for as the people of God they know better and are accountable for their actions.

Now we must be very careful to call injustice for what it is. And we must never support it. For, just as God held the Israelites accountable, so too will He hold His Church accountable. This is the point. For, even if we were to conclude that there is a future for ethnic Israel in God’s plan, that does not mean that we should endorse everything they do.

I am very fearful that many Christians are so concerned to support Israel because of their conviction of a divine commandment to do so, that they are unwilling to see injustice for what it is. Have we looked at the face of injustice and concluded, ‘but they are God’s chosen people’? But the displacement of people is wrong. Demolishing their homes and stealing their lands and depriving them of human dignity is wrong! And when wrong happens God’s people must call it wrong. We must be a voice for those who are suffering. Especially when those who are suffering includes Christians!

In fact, if we believe in the covenant faithfulness of God, then we must not suppose that He will excuse the NT people of God when they commit (or permit) injustice. We too will be held accountable before Him.  Psalm 82 still speaks for the heart of God: ‘How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked’ (Ps 82:2-4)

Thus, when someone says that they think it is dangerous to not support Israel, I think they are missing two important factors. First, to support Israel is to love them (regardless of whether they are chosen or not; as we are to love all people). To love them is to not allow them to get away with injustice. To do so is to allow them to fall under the condemnation of God. This position is far more loving toward Israel. Secondly, to support Israel at all costs and to allow them to suppress and oppress the people of Palestine, some of whom are Christians, is to place oneself under the judgment of God—who always sides with His people when they are the oppressed (again, please recognize that we do not intend to suppose that the Palestinians are innocent in all matters. They too have committed crimes. Nor, do we suppose that Israel is not justified in some of their acts. They do have a right to defend themselves. But we must acknowledge that Israel has perpetrated crimes against the Palestinians and are breaking numerous international laws).

This is an easy one. No. Unequivocally. Emphatically. Unquestioningly. Unhesitatingly. No. To be anti-Semitic is to be unchristian.

I am also not anti-Palestinian (many of whom ironically are Semitic); nor am I anti-Jew; nor anti-Muslim; nor anti-US. Nor anti-anything! I suppose one might suggest that I am anti-anti—and therefore, I am anti-something.

But let’s take this a little further. It is commonly asserted that to criticize Israel’s behavior towards the Palestinians is to be anti-Semitic. And the world is rightly cautious of anti-Semitism being only three generations removed from one of the greatest crimes against humanity in the holocaust. Understandable.

But I would assert that if you truly love someone, then you will hold them accountable for their actions. To turn a blind eye toward the ill behavior of anyone is unloving. The author of Hebrews notes: ‘for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness’ (Heb 12:7-11)

To love someone, then, means that you believe that they are a being of value. And as such they need to be held accountable for their actions. The child that is not held accountable for their actions will only continue on the path of their destructive behavior—and this to their own detriment!

Therefore, to call attention to Israel’s behavior towards the Palestinians is to love Israel and the Palestinians (and I would add the US).  It is also then an act of love on our part to reach out to those Christians who are blindly supporting Israel and in effect helping to perpetuating this conflict. They need to understand the serious harm that is occurring as a result of such views: harm to both Israel and Palestine, as well as to the people themselves—some of whom are our Christian brothers and sisters.

Therefore, it is, in actually, those who are advocating for the unquestioning support of Israel, and who turn their backs on the injustices perpetrated by the state of Israel, that are acting in an unloving manner towards Israel.