Occasionally, a headline of interest will prompt me to pick up one of the copies of the "Christian Examiner: Los Angeles County edition" that are sometimes to be found in the workroom at church. This month, it was two headlines: Chuck Colson's column on "Should Christian Kids Read Harry Potter?" and an article about Tony Campolo and "Red Letter Christians" as a "growing political force".
I encourage you to take a look at both those articles, but what I really am blogging about is a commentary on p.7 by Leo A. Giovinetti, senior pastor of Mission Valley Christian Fellowship San Diego and host of Real Life Radio: "World Council of Churches abandons Bible with new proclamation on Israel". Read it for yourself and be your own judge, but to me it reads like an overly-literalist and hyper-alarmist end-times left-behind apocalyptic scenario. You may disagree.
But what is of most interest to me is what inspired Pastor Leo's jeremiad: a June 2007 WCC statement called The Amman Call on "Churches together for Peace and Justice in the Middle East". Even more interesting is that presumably the situation has since gotten much worse for Pastor Leo, as the WCC statement has been followed by a similar statement (actually a letter to President Bush) by evangelicals in the U.S. and published by the New York Times July 27, 2007.
What is all this about? I prefer to let you draw your own conclusions, but one of the things that interests me is the way in which evangelicals are beginning to publicly express a much more diverse range of opinion than the conservatism of the Religious Right. And, in light of that, I think it is crucial for us to be able to assess and evaluate the varieties of responses Christians can have to such diversity of opinion among evangelical believers. A fragmentary form of theological-political-social denominationalism, or contentious in-fighting and name-calling and proof-textural Scripture-bashing, or perhaps something else entirely?
And what are we to say about the modern secular nation-state of Israel with respect to the chosen people of God? Are the two synonymous? Should the people of God be so in name only, or should they also be expected to demonstrate the character of God -- doing no wrong to a neighbor, blessing peacemakers, loving enemies, never taking your own revenge but leaving room for the wrath of God?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hi Jeremy,
Quoting from your words: "... to me it reads like an overly-literalist and hyper-alarmist end-times left-behind apocalyptic scenario." and, "A fragmentary form of theological-political-social denominationalism, or contentious in-fighting and name-calling and proof-textural Scripture-bashing, or perhaps something else entirely?"
Unfortunately, it would appear that you are guilty of that which you are accsuing Pastor Giovinetti to have done. Rather than scripturally supporting your view, you resort to name calling and gross all encompassing generalizations of conservative Christians. Sounds to me like "more in-fighting" instead of a recognition that we (believers in Christ) all serve the same God.
To answer your question, I think it (Pastor Giovinetti's article) is something else entirely. Since this is the first time for me to read any of Pastor Giovinetti's writings, I have carefully reread Pastor Giovinetti's article several times and cannot come to the same conclusions as you have reached. Of course, I may not share your same presuppostions. By my understanding, Pastor Giovinetti merely states the facts; asks us to read our bibles; and, thereafter to make our own conclusions. I find no "proof-textural scripture-bashing" by the pastor.
Certainly, Pastor Giovinetti does present the biblically correct view that Israel has a God ordained right to the land and, just as certainly, this view is increasingly unpopular in the world and, particularly, in our post-Christian society. However, if you disagree with scriptures, your argument is not with Pastor Giovinetti, but your argument is in fact with God Himself.
Like the WCC, I entirely support peaceful solutions to the mid-east problems. However, acting in conflict with the scriptures, such as the WCC have done, is to act against God Almighty. The historical facts of the matter (in oppostion to the revised history that is taught in our government schools) clearly indicate that Israel is NOT the agressor. The bible is also clear that, like it or not, and in spite of our efforts at world peace, we will have wars until Christ returns to put an end to this world. In the interim, by the rules of war that are accepted by all nations, Israel is also NOT the occupier.
Why must Israel be required to operate by different rules than all other nations? The obvious and easy answer is that it serves God's purpose. Beyond the obvious, we know that Jesus told us that the world would hate us (believers in Christ) because it first hated Him (John 15:18). Based upon the Old Testament historical accounts, it is obvious that the world hates Israel because the world hates God. It would take far too long to develope this point than I have here however, based on scriptural teaching, the Christian should be the first to rush to Israel's defense and support since we should understand Israel's significance to God. This is not to say that Israel is without responsibilities but that too is yet another discussion on which I shall not embark at this time.
Scripture contains serious warnings to those who would oppose Israel. Opposition to Israel is not conditional therefore, regardless the state of Israel's following of the Lord's instructions to them, we must be very careful to make certain we are not opposing Israel (this would be analogous to the non-believer who refuses to acknowledge God because some Christions are hypocrites). To oppose Israel would be to oppose God.
As I understand Pastor Giovinetti's article, he is calling to our attention the seriousness of the position that the WCC has taken in opposition to God. Pastor Giovinetti does not claim the apocalypse is at hand but does rightfully point out that is closer with each passing day and that the alignment of forces against Israel is a key component. Rather than fearing Pastor Giovinetti's comments, we ought to take his advise and read the scriptures so that we may be properly informed.
Syd
Thanks, Syd. Like I said . . . "you may disagree."
I take your point, however, that I, too, am guilty. I think my choice of words was a bit careless and I apologize for that.
To me, your comments remind me all the more how difficult it is (maybe just for me . . . ?) to address these sorts of disagreements in a healthy way within the church. I certainly don't want to divide or name-call. But I do want to say something about what I think is right based on Scripture, just as you or Pastor Leo or anyone else does. But sometimes doing that may entail labelling various position and contrasting them with others. And sometimes doing that seems to invite the very sorts of division and name-calling we are trying to avoid.
One difficulty the article and your comments both point out -- and something to which I was responding with a bit of frustration -- is the challenge of understanding what "Scriptural support" really amounts to. In this regard, the literalist seems to have the upper hand, for the "plain meaning" of a given passage is right there in the words as they stand (translated or not, but still supposedly free from all presupposition or interpretation). Thus, Pastor Leo's injunction to "read your Bibles" often assumes that the texts he cites only allow for a single interpretation and that his is standard. Obviously, Scripture is the standard, but disagreeing with someone's interpretation of Scripture is not disagreeing with Scripture.
That being said, I don't think I am in disagreement with Scripture when I find myself in disagreement with Pastor Leo. So my argument isn't with Scripture or with God Himself, but with Pastor Leo's interpretation of Scripture.
An altogether different issue very much relevant to our discussion of 1 Corinthians 6 this Sunday is that of "rights". We are certainly not obligated to exercise all of our rights. Nor do I think God would want us to disregard the rights of others in order to exercise our own.
Hi, Jeremy:
Wow, I truly hesitate to make any comment because I feel like such an intellectual and spiritual peanut compared to most in the class, but here's a note from the "Peanut Gallery." Any opinions should be judged according to my peanut status.
I've had discussions about this issue with my older son because my own feeling is that as Christians, we have to err on the side of being overly literalist where the Bible is concerned. I feel that God has throughout history had a special and irreversible relationship with Israel, whether they were doing what He wanted them to or not. Because of this, I feel that as Christians and as a nation, we will be judged in some ways by how we treat Israel. My son disagrees, saying that the true Israel is not the secular nation-state, but the body of practicing Jews who are devout and still waiting for their Messiah--that this body of Jews who are so close to finding the truth are the ones we need to support, rather than the secular nation-state.
To me, looking at Israel as a Christian poses a real dilemma. On the one hand, I can't agree with everything the secular nation-state does, but on the other hand, I feel that they are still God's firstborn and have that special bond with God. As Paul says, we can't forget that we're the adopted ones, the shoot that was grafted onto the original plant (can't find the reference just now). The pattern for Israel throughout history seems to be that they drift away (or blatantly walk away) from God, God uses other nations to punish them (although punishes the nations that punish Israel), Israel repents and returns to God, and then God routs their enemies. As a Christian, I feel that the best thing I can do is to pray for the nation-state of Israel, that they will repent and return to God--can you imagine how God would fly to their aid and rout their enemies? I think what's going on in the Middle East IS an end-times left-behind apocalyptic scenario, and that God's hand is definitely moving history there before our eyes.
So, how was the meteor shower?
See ya Sunday--Donna
Hi Donna,
Do not be concerned that you might be a "spiritual peanut" for you appear to have the discernment needed to know the truth of this matter. You are correct in your understanding of scripture and its mandate that we support Israel, regardless the state of its obedience to God. This is not to condone Israel's failures but is to obey God.
Some of you asked me a few months ago how to interpret scripture. A full answer far exceeds the space allotted for this discussion. However, proper exegesis of scripture requires using proper hermeneutics. Among other things, two key hermeneutical principles are (1) proper context and (2) the genre of the passage to be exegeted. In most cases, the clear literal meaning of the passage is plain to the reader. Genre such as poetry is perhaps the one general exception to literal interpretation, yet it can often be interpreted literally as well.
You are correct to first take the literal meaning of scripture. Some additional work may be required in some difficult passages however, you begin in the proper manner by using this approach. The main danger with this approach is to be so rigidly literal as to ignore the context but I doubt that you will have that problem.
If I correctly understand Jeremy's comments, he seems to be frustrated by those who accept the literal or plain meaning of the text. His justification for rejecting the plain meaning appears to be a discomfort with the fact that our bibles are translated from the original languages. There are many who cite this argument in an effort to relegate the bible to a place of irrelevance in our modern society. Since there is much good scholarly and documented evidence that our translated bibles are very accurate, this is a specious argument at best. However, the mistranslations that have been made by the cults has provided support to this argument, particularly for those who are not familiar with the contents on a proper translation of the bible. Perhaps Jeremy will explain what he means when we meet tomorrow since I am trusting that he does not believe what he appears to have written.
Allegorical passsages are also an exception to the literal interpretation rule however, I believe there are far fewer allegorical passages than some would have us believe. Although not a proper way to interpret scripture, there are some who would allegorize all or major portions of scripture which thereby negates the clear literal meeaning of the text. They usually do this to avoid the literal meaning or to inject their own meaning thereby causing damage to the scriptures. This is one source of heresy and aberrant teaching that leads to poor exegesis and has been the basis on which many cults have formed.
The difficulty is most often not what the scripture means since this can be clearly known in nearly all cases. Rather, the difficulty is in how we apply the truth of scripture to the decisions we make in life. We all have various presuppositions that serve as the lens through which we make such application. I think that Jeremy is trying to get us to examine our presuppositions to make certain that our application is proper. To this end, open dialog is necessary since some of us may need to change our understanding of scripture and how it must be applied to our life.
Coming back to the original point of whether or not to support Israel -- we must support Israel. I firmly believe that if we as a nation cease to support Israel, God will remove His hand of blessing from our nation. There may well be other reasons for that blessing to be removed (some may argue that is has already been removed) but this is certainly a key reason about which the scriptures are clear.
Syd
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Very well-considered and expressed! I'll try to do as well in a short time/space.
Syd, thanks for a charitable reading of my comments, as they were not entirely clear as written. We are in agreement that literal interpretations are out-of-place in certain scriptural genres, such as poetry and prophecy. My point was that, looking at Pastor Leo's scriptural support for his view, it seems to me that he has based too much interpretive weight on a literal reading of certain figurative prophetic passages (in Isaiah for example) and I think that is a stretch of the text (improper hermeneutics, in other words).
I think issues of translation and interpretation are also relevant, but I am not (yet?) a complete post-modern. They do not render the Bible irrelevant. I think we can overcome most of them through something like triangulation or convergence. I know that might sound like a threat to Protestantism's commitment to "sola scriptura". But I think it is a responsible and appropriately humble approach to take toward God's holy Word.
As for supporting/opposing Israel, we seem to be facing a semantic issue quite relevant to recent American political discourse. Am I failing to "support the troops" if I am criticial of the ends or means (or both) of their current mission in Iraq? I think not. We can raise legitimate criticisms as a means of support, not only opposition. Letting someone get away with whatever they want or do whatever they want with impunity is not supporting them, as it is likely not in their best interests for us to do so.
It would seem strange to me if God's (and our) support of Israel meant that Israel couldn't come under any criticism. Especially given that God Himself (and Jesus most dramatically) criticizes Israel throughout much of their history (and often with actions (exile) and attitudes (anger, wrath, etc.) that may be interpretated as a form of opposition), and often for general moral lapses and not just ritual failures.
Also, I assume in this entire discussion that there is a relevant distinction between the modern nation-state called Israel and the Israel of Scripture. So it might also end up being the case that criticism of the nation-state of Israel is not in fact a criticism of the Israel of Scripture at all (or at least not entirely).
Dare I press the "PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT" button? Ha! I trust that love covers whatever multitide of unintentional sins have been unwittingly committed in the above expression of my limited understanding of God's mysterious ways.
To publish or not to publish? That is the question.
I flat-out don't agree with Leo's article. The WCC is being criticized because they're interested in bringing peace? I must be missing something. (I would also add that there's a difference between criticizing Israel and not supporting them, but Jeremy's already made the point.)
But correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that's the point of this blog post. We, as Christians, are actually a pretty diverse group, with different takes on politics, different backgrounds and cultures, different views on whether or not kids should read Harry Potter, and even different scriptural interpreations about what should be happening right now in Israel and the Middle East.
In the article cited, Pastor Leo makes not only makes it sound like my scriptural interpretaion is more valid than mine, but that if I oppose him, I must be in opposition to Scripture. That doesn't leave a lot of room open for discussion.
Dave
Post a Comment