Baptist News Global: And a Biblically Illiterate Congressman Shall Lead Them
As we approach the 2024 election, with the news media still trumpeting uncertainty about the outcome, there should be rising concern about the infusion of Christian nationalist perspectives into the campaign rhetoric. The alarm bells should already be ringing about the potential threats a second Trump administration poses to Constitutionally guaranteed individual liberties and to American constitutional democracy in general. Throw the various aspects of Christian nationalism and white supremacy into that mix and it brings me to the point where I just don't understand how half the country could still be so deluded and so uninformed.
The addition of perspectives on a foreign war, the conflict between Israel and Gaza, have added a whole new element of concern to the potential loss of freedom we are facing. The linked article from Baptist News Global, reporting on the exchange, in a congressional hearing, between Representative Rick Allen, a Georgia Republican, whose spewed out ignorance should come as no surprise, and Columbia University President Dr. Minouche Shafik, is an egregious example of exactly what we may be facing if the ignorance and misinterpretation of the Bible that leads to Christian nationalism is ever elevated to the point where it has the favor of the political power of the Presidency.
Though my purpose in writing here is to point out to those Christians who do read this blog, and who do, from time to time, express doubts and reservations about conservative, white Evangelical support for a politician whose lifestyle exhibits the exact opposite of the characteristics of Evangelical Christian theology and practice, it is also to affirm, for those Americans who are either outside the church altogether, or who are in Christian traditions that aren't going down the heretical path created by the blending of far right wing politics with fundamentalist, conservative, Evangelicalism, that the latter are promoting a false, errant view of Christian faith and practice. That includes the idea that the founding fathers intended for the United States to be a Christian nation in the same way Israel was a theocracy in the Old Testament, and that the modern state of Israel is a restoration of that theocracy, which justifies what it is doing to Gaza.
There's also the idea, as Representative Allen asserts, that because of modern Israel's special status, the United States is motivated to protect Israel, and to provide it with all the weaponry it needs to blow Gaza to smithereens and scatter its civilian population because God will withdraw his blessing from the United States if it doesn't support Israel. Even though that completely and totally contradicts just about everything Jesus taught as his gospel, which is all the substance of what the United States should be, when it comes to Israel, no doctrine or theology applies to them. They are, according to some conservative Christian eschatology, part of another "dispensation" which will bring them salvation by a different means than the Christian church teaches applies to the rest of us.
False Eschatology and False Views Related to the Modern State of Israel
The incoherence of Representative Allen's questioning Dr. Shafik on the subject is, perhaps, the best illustration we currently have to point to the problems created by blending far right wing Christianity with far right wing politics. Allen's remarks are a rambling testimony of ignorance of both the Bible he claims to believe and claims as the "word of God," and the United States Constitution. Dragging that particularly ignorant perspective into a position on the Israeli-Hamas war, and subsequently on the campus protests against it by college students, Allen bases his entire perspective on false, uninformed, incorrect beliefs about what the Bible actually says, and what the constitution actually says.
The piece in Baptist News Global does an excellent job of pointing out exactly where Allen is mistaken.
If I'd been one of Congressman Allen's English teachers, I'd be embarrassed for anyone to know it. And if he belonged to the same church I did, I wouldn't admit it. Allen, through the incoherence, appears to be interpreting a few scattered biblical prooftexts through a doctrinal position on eschatology, or the study of "end times" theology, known as pre-millennial dispensationalism.
In terms of the overall picture of Christian theology and doctrine, pre-millennial dispensationalism is a relatively new development, mostly 20th century origins, that depends on a literal interpretation of related Bible passages and completely ignores the cultural context in which the words were written, and their original intent and meaning. It falsely connects passages that were never intended to be connected, altering any chance at getting an accurate perspective but creating an entirely new conclusion based on something never intended to be understood in that way.
The errors made by those whose interpretation of the Bible comes out as pre-millennial dispensationalism are found in their complete lack of consideration of the multiple historical contexts in which the Bible was written. Each book in the Bible was written to people in a specific time and place, and addresses their specific spiritual and historical context. There are no hidden meanings, double meanings or dualist interpretations that make the words of the Bible mean something different, for different people in a different age, than they meant originally.
So, citing a scripture from Genesis 12:3, from the historical period when the Jewish race was only just beginning to develop, and applying it in the same literal way to the modern state of Israel, is an errant use of scripture. Though many fundamentalist Christians would insist that it is, the modern state of Israel in no way resembles the early, tribal people the scripture in Genesis is referencing. In fact, the words recorded there are a promise from God to Abraham, about his future descendants, not specific to those who would eventually form into the Israelite nation. Some Palestinians, too, can trace their ancestry back to Abraham, through his son Ishmael, who is not excluded from this prophetic statement.
Biblical Illiteracy Affects Attitudes About the Israeli-Hamas War in Gaza
From a Christian perspective, while the 66 books of the Protestant Bible that are recognized as canonical constitute what is defined as the inspired, written word of God, they are not meant to be interpreted literally, word by word, or "verse by verse" as some Christians define their interpretation. There is a clear theological context which determines how the whole Bible is seen from the current point in human history.
The Baptist Faith and Message of 1963, a doctrinal statement produced by the Southern Baptist Convention, in Article I, The Scriptures, states, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus." The current, 2000 version further elaborates that "All scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation." So in interpreting any part of the Bible by Christian practice means that the words of Jesus must be consulted and interpreted with regard to determining the meaning of any other passage of scripture.
Jesus did make a clear statement regarding his view of what was considered the authoritative religious doctrine of his time, found in the Old Testament.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass away from the law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18, NRSV
That's a key, interpretive statement from Jesus, the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted. And that criterion is saying, clearly, that all prophecy, which at his time was found in the Old Testament, was fulfilled in him. He was the object of it, and is saying that the law is also fulfilled in him. The modern state of Israel is not, in this regard, a "restoration" of the theocracy of Israel or the monarchy of the Old Testament. That covenant relationship was replaced by the Christian gospel, the end of the old covenant, predicted by Jesus, was fulfilled in 70 CE by the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, exactly as he predicted.
There is no covenant connection between the modern state of Israel and the covenant theocracy of the Old Testament. There's no passage in the Bible that even alludes to such a restoration. Modern Israel is a secular state, by design, a democracy with a parliamentary form of government modeled after the UK, not homogenously Jewish, granting religious liberty to its citizens, 21% of whom are Arabs practicing Islam. About 2% of Israelis are Christians, and the vast majority of the Christians are also Arabs of Palestinian origin. Although 75% of Israeli citizens are Jewish, mostly Ashkenazi, or "German influenced", only about 20% of Israeli Jews practice any form of Judaism.
But pre-millennial dispensationalists take a complicated and convoluted turn and twist through prophecies found in Revelation, the gospel accounts and the Old Testament book of Daniel, to come up with what I call an Armageddon Calendar that leads to the second coming of Christ and elevates the modern state of Israel into a "restored" Davidic kingdom that becomes the center focus of prophetic, end times events.
As a result, it becomes a matter of course to allow Israel the right to destroy all of its neighbors who don't get with the program, because they deserve it and because they are already ungodly Arab Muslims worthy of destruction because the won't acknowledge Christ, and because they are in the way of his return. And in defending Israel's right to blow Gaza to smithereens and murder many of its civilian population, it's these Old Testament verses from the Bible that are cited.
Let's Set the Religious Record Straight
In spite of all of the complications involved in the manner in which the state of Israel came into existence in 1948, Israel's right to exist has been established. There is little that can be done to change those circumstances at this point.
The attack on October 7th against Israeli civilians was clearly for terrorist purposes. No military objectives were achieved and no war was declared. Israel has the right to defend itself against such attacks, and the right to make sure it is safe from similar attacks in the future.
It is not anti-Semitic to protest against Israel's war against Hamas when the perception has reached the point that it is no longer about defending its people, but seems to carry with it the goal of vengeance, which is not acceptable. It's OK to point out when something looks like it has gone out of the bounds of responsible defense. It's clear that no resolution is coming out of what's happening now.
The student protests occurring in the United States, largely peaceful unless some right wingers show up to cause trouble, are practicing constitutionally guaranteed free speech. As long as they do not block access to education on campus, and permit those students who choose not to become involved the personal freedom to do so, and do not disrupt the educational purpose of the institution where they are taking place, leave them alone, please.
Members of the United States Congress who want to have a hearing so they can have a platform for their views should not open their mouths unless they know what they are talking about, lest they embarrass themselves and the office they serve.
No comments:
Post a Comment