Evangelicals and Israel: A Slipping Support? – John Hubers
I teach a course called “Christian Story: II” which is a general education requirement for students at Northwestern. As part of this class, which is essentially an introduction to historical theology, I cover the rise of the American fundamentalist movement particularly in the wake of the fundamentalist/modernist conflict arising out of the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. I use this occasion to introduce students to the pessimistic eschatology of dispensationalism. To start I ask them if they’ve ever heard terms like anti-Christ, tribulation, rapture – the literary bread and butter of Darby inspired dispensationalism. When I did this last week, asking students to raise their hands if they’ve ever heard these terms only three raised their hands for “rapture.” “Anti-Christ” got a few more positive responses; “tribulation” none.
I would expect this if I were teaching in a secular institution, or even a college with Christian origins that attracts students from diverse religious or non-religious backgrounds. But our little college sells itself not only as a Reformed institution, but as an evangelical/Reformed institution, the result being a large crop of students from more conservative evangelical backgrounds, including a good number of Baptists. I know the Baptists and independent evangelicals in my class. They were not among those who raised their hands.
Admittedly this is not a scientific survey of the millennial generations’ apocalyptic leanings, but it underscores an observation I have made about this generation of evangelical Christians. While some resonate with their parents’ pro-Israel leanings (particularly those who haven’t actually thought much about it) few go there for theological reasons – that is, if they go there at all. There is, in fact, a growing movement of young evangelicals who are showing a much greater sympathy for the Palestinians for biblical reasons that have nothing to do with eschatology. It’s about justice and fairness and loving our neighbors as we love ourselves. It’s an ethical mandate that has little to do with the speculative puzzle of dispensationalism.
This was most recently on display at the second annual Christ at the Crossroads conference held at Bethlehem Bible College from March 10-14 of this year. The website promoting the conference included this teaser to indicate what the conference was about:
The conference will cover different topics including: the Palestinian Church, religious radicalism, Christian Zionism, the teaching of Jesus in a place of conflict, the kingdom of God, peacemaking, and reconciliation. In addition, participants will gain a better understanding of the realities on the ground.
Christian Zionism was discussed, but not favorably. It was seen, in fact, as an impediment to a truly Christian response to the conflict. In the past this would have been seen as a liberal Christian response. But these were American evangelicals at a Baptist seminary. Clearly a shift is taking place.
I would attribute this to several factors. First is the impact of post-modernism on evangelical thought despite the stinging critique of this epistemological phenomenon by many evangelical leaders. I see this in the reluctance of young evangelicals to buy into any meta-narratives about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, including, or even mostly, the speculative schemata of dispensationalism. The fact that this schemata is often accompanied by charts and graphs tying all the loose ends of scripture together in a neat apocalyptic package, makes it particularly suspect among those who swim in post modernist currents.
The second factor is a greater appreciation among young evangelicals for the role of context in determining valid responses to conflicted situations. In this case they are aware in a way that earlier generations were not aware of the fact that this conflict is driven by two narratives, both of which need to be taken into consideration to formulate a proper Christian response. This, I would argue, is the post-modernist difference.
But there is another factor at work here having to do with a lack of solid biblical grounding for an evangelical generation whose faith is being described with some credence as “therapeutic deism.” What is at stake here is the lack of biblical resonance for the modern state of Israel, which was a deciding factor for pro-Israel support among Christians in previous generations.
I base this observation on the insightful work of Irvine H. Anderson in his book, Biblical Interpretation and Middle East Policy: The Promised Land, America and Israel, 1917-2002 (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2005). Anderson finds the roots of American Christian support for the Zionist project in a predisposition for a pro-Israel position arising out of a solid grounding in the biblical narrative for many American Christians who learned their faith in Sunday School. This is how Anderson puts it:
The thesis here is that so many people in Britain and the United States have been influenced by childhood stories from the Bible about Abraham, Joshua, and the Promised Land and by what has come to be known as “End Times” or “Armageddon” theology that much of the electorate in both countries has been predisposed to support the return of the Jews to Palestine. This has made it relatively easy for Zionist and pro-Israel lobbies to be effective with both the executive and legislative branches of government in Great Britain and the United States.[1]
If what Anderson says is true then it is also true that this generation is losing that predisposition mainly because they do not have the same grounding in the biblical narrative of previous generations. As someone who is teaching basic biblical and theological lessons to young evangelicals I can affirm that this is, indeed, a generational shift. Our churches are not doing a great job in passing on the kind of grounding in the biblical narrative that previous generations took for granted. As that slips away so does the predisposition towards support for the policies of the Israeli state.
What I am suggesting here is at this point a working hypothesis based on observations I have made both as a professor of religion at a Christian college and former pastor of a university church where I first became aware of the phenomenon of post-modernism and its impact on Christian thought. I may be proved wrong. The Christian Zionist movement may be more tenaciously influential than I am willing to admit. But the fact that Zionist writers are beginning to notice this shift themselves may indicate that I am on to something. Time will tell.
The Rev. Dr. John M. Hubers is assistant professor of missiology at Northwestern College in Orange City, Iowa. From 2001-2006 he held the Middle East and South Asia desk for the Reformed Church in America. He earned his BA in History from the institution where he is currently teaching, his MDiv from New Brunswick Theological Seminary (NJ) and his ThM and PhD from the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. During his seminary training, Rev. Hubers spent one year in Cairo, Egypt studying Arabic and Christian/Muslim relations. From 1986-96 Dr. Hubers served as pastor of international congregations in the Arabian Gulf States of Oman and Bahrain, where he had also taught English for two years after graduating from university. He has also served churches in New York, Michigan and Texas. Dr. Hubers is the author of a number of articles relating to Christian-Muslim relations in the Church Herald, the former denominational magazine of the Reformed Church in America, along with several articles in The Other Side magazine on topics relating to Islam, the first Gulf War, and Christian/Muslim relations in Egypt. “Zion’s Christian Soldiers” is Rev. Hubers’ critique of Christian Zionism (a study guide for Reformed Church congregations), and “Christian Zionism and the Myth of America” is the text of an address he gave to the Middle East Council of Churches conference in Beirut, Lebanon (2002). Both papers are available at HCEF’s website. Dr. Hubers and his wife Lynne have two grown children.