How Not to Criticize
Israel: Guidelines for Conversations between Evangelicals and Jews
John E. Phelan, Jr.
North Park Theological Seminary
Evangelical
Christians have for years been dependable supporters of the state of
Israel. Dispensationalist interpreters
saw the reconstitution of the state in 1948 as a fulfillment of prophecy and a
clear sign that the return of Jesus was at hand. Throughout the following decades Israel could
count on Evangelicals to support the state in the voting booth as well as from
the pulpit. This support, of course, was
not new. Zionists found support for
their cause in the late 19th and early 20th century from
Christian students of prophecy who were convinced the fulfillment of God’s
purposes required a Jewish state in their ancient homeland. In the early decades of the 20th
century pastors, theologians, and Christian politicians enthusiastically
promoted the cause of a Jewish homeland.
In many circles to this day it is unthinkable for an Evangelical to
criticize or question the state of Israel.
In
recent years things have begun to change.
Many Evangelicals have been sensitized to the sufferings and struggles
of the Palestinians—particularly Palestinian Christians. At the same time, Dispensationalism has
fallen into disfavor in many Evangelical circles. For many the state of Israel is no longer
necessary for the fulfillment of prophecy and the Jews’ return to the land is
no longer seen as a reason for celebration.
Evangelical Christians committed to social justice have joined their
colleagues in mainline Protestant churches in criticizing Israel over the
plight of the Palestinians. Its
Christian critics now frequently depict Israel as just one more oppressive
colonial power in the Middle East.
Supporting Israel has become as unthinkable for some Evangelicals as
supporting cuts in government support of the poor!
Israel
is a state like any other. It has had
good leaders and poor ones. It has made
wise decisions and foolish ones. It is
as subject to criticism as Egypt, Iraq or the United States. One of my Jewish friends says that among Jews
criticizing the government of Israel is an intramural sport. No state, Israel included, is beyond
criticism. Nevertheless, some Christian
and specifically Evangelical criticisms of Israel are neither just nor helpful
and others are simply shockingly inappropriate.
Conversations between Evangelicals and Jews over the perceived failures
of the state of Israel are fairly new.
In what follows some principles of engagement are proposed that may
enable those conversations to be helpful rather than hurtful.
Principle One: Evangelicals should not criticize the state
of Israel by questioning the legitimacy of Judaism itself.
Some Evangelical
criticism of Israel has come by way of a critique of so-called “Christian
Zionism.” Such criticism is intended to
break the hold that Dispensationalist thinkers have had on Evangelical
conversations about Israel and Judaism.
Unfortunately, when critics launch salvoes at the popular dispensationalist
approaches to the interpretation of the Bible the Jews are caught in the
crossfire. It is popular to argue
against the Christian Zionists, for example, by suggesting that the Jews no
longer have any right to the land of Israel in that Christians are now the sole
heirs of all the promises to Abraham. Some
have gone as far as to say this means the Palestinian Christians are the true heirs of the land of Israel—not the Jews
(or the Muslims, for that matter).
In
making their case against the Christian Zionists and for the Christian
Palestinians these Evangelical critics of Israel have perhaps inadvertently
launched an attack on Judaism itself.
Their approach implies not only that Jews no longer have a right to the
land of Israel, but also that they no
longer have a right to interpret their
own holy texts. Christians are now
entrusted with the stewardship of the Jewish scriptures and their meaning. This amounts to a Christian colonization of
Jewish texts and traditions. To many
Jews this sounds like the Jews, not
simply Israel, have no right to exist.
This is not simply an attack on their homeland but on their core
convictions about their identity and purpose as God’s people. Given the ugly history of Christian and
Jewish relations such approaches sound a warning bell for even the most secular
Jew!
Christian
scholars have in recent years been engaged in serious discussions of “supersessionism”
or “replacement” theories. In its
crudest form supersessionism holds that the people of Israel have simply been superseded
by the church of Jesus Christ and therefore have no claim on their own texts,
traditions or future. This conversation
is not a new one. The future of the people of Israel as Israel was an issue
that deeply troubled the apostle Paul.
Some argue that the entire book of Romans is dedicated to exploring this
issue. When Paul discusses this directly
in Romans 9-11 he begins by arguing “they are
[note the present tense] Israelites. The
adoption as God’s children, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law,
the worship and the promises belong
to them.” A bit later he insists, “God
did not reject his people whom he foreknew.”
He concludes his argument with the startling assertion: “All Israel will
be saved.” It seems clear that Paul, at
least, did not think that with the
founding of the Christian church God’s promises to and love for Israel, as
Israel had become passé. Paul, it seems
to many of us, foresaw a future for Israel as Israel.
The
upshot of all this is that Evangelicals would do well to avoid using
theological arguments to criticize the state of Israel. Such theological arguments may be heard as at
least indirect attacks on Jews and Judaism. This will, to say the least, not
foster helpful conversations. It is
certainly fair to criticize Israel where its actions are demonstrably unjust
and contrary to its own laws and principles, but it is frankly anti-Jewish to
criticize Israel by implying Jews, as Jews have no right to land or a
future. Evangelical critics of Israel need
to recognize how painfully this rings in Jewish ears. Evangelicals implying that Israel, as a
Jewish state, has no right to exist will not improve the situation of the
Palestinians.
Principle Two: Criticisms of the State of Israel must be grounded in an
understanding of the history of the region and a fair assessment of its
contemporary challenges.
The history of
this region did not begin with the construction of the separation fence and
wall or even with the foundation of the state in 1948. The conflicts between Israel’s Jews and their
neighbors did not begin with the first Intifada. Israel’s critics need to
remember that the Jews did not simply take the land in the war of independence
but were promised a homeland by the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The British, anticipating the fall of the
Ottoman Empire declared that they viewed “with favor the establishment in
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” The declaration became part of the peace
treaty with Turkey after the war. Following
the breakup of the Ottoman Empire with the help of the British, Arabs, long
under the thumb of the Ottoman Empire and European colonial powers, established
several large states in North Africa and the Middle East. The Jews, in spite of assurances from the
British, faced a long and bitter struggle to see their promised homeland
established.
Years
ago the American Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, a supporter of the
creation of the state of Israel, argued that justice could only be relative in
the Middle East. Surely many
Palestinians suffered losses of land and place with the creation of the state
of Israel. Some were driven from their
homes. Some fled fully expecting to
return. Some, of course, stayed where
they were. The Palestinians, like millions
of others in the wake of the Second World War, suffered tragic displacements
and bitter losses. This is well known
and should be remembered. What is less
well known is that hundreds of thousands of Jews were driven from their homes,
lands, and businesses at the creation of the various Arab states and, in many
cases, found refuge in the emerging state of Israel. Nothing justifies or makes easier the loss of
land and home, but historical context matters.
Having said this, although history matters, it
is fruitless to adjudicate the past.
Making a tally of which party is the most oppressed or has suffered the
greatest losses leads only to balkanization and bitterness. The challenge of a tragic history is to find
a way out of violence, fear, and distrust.
Neither Jews nor Palestinians should forget their pasts, but neither
should let the tragic realities of their shared pasts prevent them from seeking
a safe and healthy future for their children and grandchildren. Evangelicals, justly eager to support and
encourage their Palestinian brothers and sisters should know and appreciate
this painful past and the reasons the Israeli government acts as it does in the
present. The separation fence and wall,
for example, did not come into being because the Israelis wanted to make life
miserable for the Palestinians. It came
into being because Israelis were dying at the hands of suicide bombers on
busses, in cafes and on the streets. As
ugly and unfortunate as the wall is, it has, tragically, worked. If Israel is to remove this barrier, as I
hope it one day will, it must be given an alternative means of protecting its
people and their future. Nothing exists,
not even the wall, in a vacuum.
Third Principle: Conversations between Evangelicals and Jews about
Israel and Judaism must recognize and acknowledge foundational disagreements
between and shared ignorance of one another.
Evangelicals
should not assume they understand
contemporary Jews and Judaism. They may
know the Hebrew Scriptures well. They
may be well versed on the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus’ day. They may imagine that because they understand
Paul’s critiques of his Jewish contemporaries, that they understand and may
critique their Jewish contemporaries. Such assumptions are fatal to dialogue. The key
to any useful dialogue is to let the dialogue partner speak for him or herself! It is not for Evangelical Christians to tell
Jews what they believe. Nor, of course,
is it the place of Jews to tell Christians, evangelical or otherwise, what they
believe. Dialogue always begins with
listening. Evangelicals should let their
Jewish partners tell their own stories and vice versa. In these conversations the differences will
emerge and be acknowledged soon enough!
Careful
listening will reveal that there are many religious, political, and theological
differences within the respective Jewish and Evangelical communities! There are a variety of opinions within both
camps regarding the politics and practices of the state of Israel. There are significant disagreements regarding
how the texts and traditions of Judaism and Christianity are to be applied to
living in the modern world. But whatever
the differences, there is in many if not most Jews a fierce commitment to
endurance the Jewish people. A bitter
history of pogroms and the Holocaust has bound many Jews, both religious and
secular, to the land of Israel. Here, if
nowhere else, in a Jewish homeland, Jews can be safe to live as Jews and practice
their traditions well, poorly, or not at all! For many Jews the state of Israel
is an assurance of a Jewish future.
Evangelicals cannot pretend to understand fully or appreciate what it
means to the survivors of centuries of violence and hostility to find a safe
home in the land of Israel.
Jews and
Christians view differently the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. They view differently the role of Torah in
the life of an individual and community.
They regard the same texts as the authoritative word of God but read
them through a very different set of lenses.
Their sense of “peoplehood” is very different. Only if Evangelicals and Jews listen to one
another and learn from one another over time will they begin to understand their
varied convictions and commitments. Only
if Evangelicals and Jews listen to one another will they come over time to
understand the significance and challenges of their different perceptions of
the state of Israel. Perhaps then,
together, they may have a role in pointing to solutions to its many problems
and challenges.
In spite of their many differences, Evangelical
Christians and Jews still have a great deal in common and profound reasons to
listen to and learn from one another. Evangelical
Christians and Jews worship the same God—the God of the Jews—the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is the
God who calls all Jews and Christians, “to act justly and to love mercy and to
walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8b).
And whatever their differences with Jews over Israel, Evangelical
Christians who hold authoritative the words of the Apostle Paul should be
concerned that the Jewish people have a future, believing the Jews beloved of
God and that “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.”
Principle Four: Evangelicals should criticize Israel as friends of
Israel.
Criticism from
those hostile to the state of Israel and critical of its very existence are
certainly less well received than that of critics committed to a just a safe
future for Israel and its Jews. Any criticism that is not founded on Israel’s
right to exist as a Jewish state may sound like an attack on the very survival
of the Jews. Criticism grounded in love
is more easily borne that criticism rooted in hostility. Critics of Israel would do well to listen to
the anguish and longing of Israelis for stability, peace, and hope for a shared
future with their Palestinian neighbors.
They should also listen to the despair of a people with few friends and
many enemies. Threatened people do not
always behave in the most judicious manner.
Israel needs friends who support its existence as a healthy and secure
state. Such friends earn the right to
raise questions and offer criticism. Why
would the Jews of Israel listen to critics who are determined to write them not
only out of their own story, but the story of the world? The best way for Evangelicals to address the
challenges of the Palestinian people, both Christian and Muslim is to be a
friendly critic of Israel committed to its survival and not its destruction.
Conclusion
Evangelicals
sometimes are not aware that others may be overhearing their internal
conversations. These conversations can
produce pain and bewilderment among our Jewish friends and colleagues. Frequently the targets of our critiques are
our theological and political opponents within the Evangelical community. But rhetoric intended to undermine positions
we find unacceptable from a justice perspective or biblical point of view can
inflict unintended wounds upon the Jewish community. This is especially true if our views are in
the first place uninformed, unfair, and unreflective. I encourage all of us to speak thoughtfully,
carefully and lovingly if we hope to address the painful realities on the
ground in Israel.
