Breaking the Silence in Israel (updated)

As a progressive dispensationalist I believe scripture reveals that God will bring

Israel to national repentance at the end of this age (Rom. 11:25-27). Back in the spring of this year (2012) I posted a series of quotes from non-dispensational scholars that affirm what Paul plainly stated. Israel's best days are yet to come when, at the parousia, the Deliverer turns away iniquity from the nation and a great number (though not all) of its people are reconciled to their Messiah -- as Joseph was recognized by his brethran in ancient Egypt.

Progressive dispensationalism does not necessarily see a separate "program" for Israel in the future. Israel, upon repentance and faith, will be grafted back into the one olive tree of Abraham's faith (Rom. 11:23-24). Israel will have a distinct national identity in the age to come in fulfillment of numerous Old Testament prophecies and in accord with God's promises to the fathers. Indeed, Jerusalem will be the center of worship and the Jewish nation will occupy a central place. But it will stand among many nations of redeemed peoples that reign with Christ on the renewed earth. Collectively, these people are what we now know as the Church, a "ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation" (Rev. 5:9). Just as the Church today consists of Gentiles and "messianic" Jews, so in the age to come the Church will be multicultural, including "all Israel" (Rom. 11:26a) among its members. Distinctions among people groups will remain, however. [Another major version of premillenialism, the "historic" school, sees no future for Israel as a nation.]

Traditional dispensationalism, to which I once subscribed, believes in separate destinies for Israel and the Church. Under its schema the Church is caught up to meet Christ in the air sometime before the Great Tribulation (possibly many years or even decades before, according to J.N. Darby) and taken away to heaven, perhaps forever (not all traditional dispensationalists are in agreement on this point). Israel, meanwhile, will pass through the tribulation, the "time of Jacob's trouble," the seventieth week of the prophecy in Daniel 9. Then, as noted above, Israel will be redeemed and become the centerpiece of Christ's earthly kingdom. But its identity will forever remain differentiated from the Church.

Traditional dispensationalism helped spawn a renewed interest in the Middle East and the fate of the Jewish people. One unfortunate upshot of this was the emergence of "Christian Zionism." This strain of thinking involves a political fetish for the modern state of Israel. Seen as the resumption of God's prophetic plan, Israel is "in the land to stay" (as one of its proponents recently told me), and Christian Zionists, i.e. Christians who back the state of Israel, give unqualified support to that nation's policies on the basis of Genesis 12:1-3. A friend at work recently loaned me a book entitled As America Has Done unto Israel that says in no uncertain terms that the recent droughts, hurricanes, and economic distress in the U.S. are directly attributable to this nation having "forsaken" modern Israel in its land claims against its Palestinian neighbors.

The infatuation leads to loyalty normally reserved for one's own country. I regularly see some of my evangelical Facebook friends posting various "support Israel!" memes. One friend threw me for a loop by "liking" the IDF -- the Israeli Defense Forces. I suspect this was not about biblical prophecy but rather out of discomfort with the Muslim world. Certainly not all Israeli-liking evangelicals are dispensationalists or Christian Zionists, but simply declare their solidarity with "the one Middle Eastern democracy," "America's best friend," in contrast to its Muslim neighbors.

And what's not to admire about a military force that defeated multiple enemies in 1967? "God's chosen people" was the refrain I heard back then (of late, however, the IDF's success has notably flagged).

What we quickly forget is that many of Israel's neighbors are Christians -- Palestinians, Lebanese, and minorities in Syria and Egypt. There exists in Iran a small Christian community that finds itself in the crosshairs of potential preemptive aggression, either from Israel or the U.S. (say goodbye to the price of gasoline if this comes off).

Whether it is Christian Zionism with an apocalyptic fixation or simply a general dislike of and paranoia toward Muslims and Arabs, American Christians need to rethink the carte blanche they grant the state of Israel (incidentally, I do not for one second ignore or condone the many atrocities committed against Israelis by their enemies). Many of the Israeli government's actions are manifestly evil and cannot be justified, not even with citations from Joshua's campaign against the Canaanites.

To get a bit of perspective, I recommend Breaking the Silence, an Israeli web site where IDF soldiers give the inside story of abuses against Palestinians.

Let us pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and for repentance toward Christ, the Prince of Peace, among our Jewish and Muslim neighbors.

Rwanda: Say it Ain't So

Over at A Living Text Joel Martin has written a timely post ("Playing An Away Game") that warrants careful reflection for American Anglicans aligning with the Anglican Church of Rwanda (PEAR). As Joel points out, there is a backstory to the Rwandan genocide (as well as other dimensions of African culture and history) on which we Americans, in haste to prove our post-colonial credentials, haven't bothered to get up to speed.

There are important links in the post, especially one to a PDF of a scholarly paper by Phillip Cantrell (2007) on the link between PEAR and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). Among Cantrell's troubling points is PEAR's complicity in the RPF-concocted narrative that Tutsis and Hutus are simply constructs of the colonial past (i.e., "we're all Rwandans now").

A Rwandan blogger responded to Joel's post, corroborating the existence of the PEAR/RPF connection. I looked at his blog and found this unsettling piece. Again, worthy of careful consideration.

In Memory of Old Teeth

July 21, 1968 marked the passing of my Papaw, the Rev. Kenneth Hicks.  He was a former hobo who struggled with alcohol before turning to Christ through the faithful witness of his wife, my Granny – the granddaughter of moonshiner Bill Birchfield.

Papaw represented a bygone generation of “old-time” country preachers, the kind who work up into an exhaling rhythm.  He was a hard preacher.  But his doctrine was perfectly orthodox and biblically literate.  Papaw personally knew men like Oliver B. Greene (The Gospel Hour) and Harold Sightler (The Bright Spot Hour) and was heavily influenced by their no-nonsense, straightforward presentation of substitutionary penal atonement and call to practical holiness in a life “worthy of God.”  A few years ago I listened to recovered audio tapes of his sermons and was pleasantly surprised by their clear and forceful logic.  No rabbit trails, no hobby horses, no sensationalism.  He represented the emotionalist tradition of Appalachian Christianity without succumbing to the baser elements of folk religion.

That’s not to say Papaw was an exemplary man.  By the grace of God he was what he was – a faithful preacher of the gospel.  But he, like all believers, proved Luther’s dictum of simul iustus et peccator.  He had his moments – like the time he and another preacher left my tired and thirsty dad, then a youngster, for hours while he set up for their tent-meeting.  Papaw wasn’t particularly great with small children, either.  I used to actually dread going to visit him because of his annoying habit of sticking his false teeth out at me.  He had a devilish sense of humor.  “Don’t want to see old teeth,” I used to mumble.

Foibles aside, when he passed away his home on the ridge above Harriman, TN was covered with hundreds of mourners – friends, neighbors, and former parishioners from his sundry pastorates.  On a sultry July’s dusk as I sat on the tailgate of an stationwagon eating Pop Tarts with a couple of pretty teenage girls I had never met before, I realized that my Papaw had had a far-reaching impact on the lives of many people from the Cumberland Plateau to the Blue Ridge.

At the end of his last sermon, preached the very day he passed, he asked the congregation to repeat this refrain:

Saved by the blood of the crucified one
All hail to the Father, all hail to the Son
All hail to the Spirit, the great three in one
Saved by the blood of the crucified one

The Patriot

George Mason (1725-1792) was an Anglican Christian who, although having never attended

school a day in his life, voraciously availed himself to his uncle's library (perhaps the prototypical American unschooler). He was the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), an Anti-federalist, a Virginia delegate who opposed the new Constitution, and agitator for a Bill of Rights to be added to that document.

Here is the Virginia Declaration for our contemplation on this Fourth of July holiday.

SECTION I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

SEC. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

SEC. 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

SEC. 4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

SEC. 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in wh ich all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

SEC. 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public good.

SEC. 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

SEC. 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

SEC. 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

SEC. 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

SEC. 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

SEC. 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

SEC. 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

SEC. 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

Already, Not Yet

[T]he already-not-yet theme permeates Paul's writings. For instance, believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit now, but the Spirit is the guarantee of our future inheritance (Eph. 1:13-14). Believers are adopted as God's children now, and yet they await their final adoption in the Resurrection (Eph. 1:5; Rom. 8:23). Speaking of the Resurrection, the new age has dawned with the resurrection of Christ (Rom. 1:4), and yet Christians will not enjoy the resurrection of the body until the last day (1 Cor. 15:20-28). The new creation has arrived in Christ, but we await the day when the created order is liberated from its slavery (Rom. 8:18-25).

~ Thomas Schreiner

Welcome to the White Horse

I have been an admirer of Michael Horton's writing for some time. I've added the White Horse Inn blog to "The Places I Go." Horton is currently in the midst of an important discussion of authority in the church, distinguishing between broadly evangelical, strictly Reformational, and Roman Catholic forms. Here's an example:

Reformation Christians can agree with Augustine when he said that he would never have known the truth of God’s Word apart from the catholic church. As the minister of salvation, the church is the context and means through which we come to faith and are kept in the faith to the end. When Philip found an Ethiopian treasury secretary returning from Jerusalem reading Isaiah 53, he inquired, “Do you understand what you are reading?” “How can I,” the official replied, “unless someone guides me?” (Ac 8:30-31). Explaining the passage in the light of its fulfillment in Christ, Philip baptized the man who then “went on his way rejoicing” (v 39).

Philip did not have to be infallible; he only had to communicate with sufficient truth and clarity the infallible Word.

For many, this kind of certainty, based on a text, is not adequate. We have to know—really know—that what we believe is an infallible interpretation of an ultimate authority. The churches of the Reformation confess that even though some passages are more difficult to understand, the basic narratives, doctrines and commands of Scripture—especially the message of Christ as that unfolds from Genesis to Revelation—is so clearly evident that even the unlearned can grasp it.

For the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean that the church and its official summaries of Scripture (creeds, confessions, catechisms, and decisions in wider assemblies) had no authority. Rather, it meant that their ministerial authority was dependent entirely on the magisterial authority of Scripture. Scripture is the master; the church is the minister...

As I have pointed out in previous posts, the frustration with the state of contemporary Protestantism is understandable. I feel it every day. Yet those who imagine that they will escape the struggle between the “already” and the “not yet,” the certainty of a promise and the certainty of possession, the infallibility of God’s Word and the fallibility of its appointed teachers, are bound to be disappointed wherever they land. As Calvin counseled on the matter, Scripture alone is sufficient; “better to limp along this path than to dash with all speed outside it.”

I encourage readers to take a look at the whole series of articles.