What Middle Course?

Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNet Daily, has a beef with Christianity Today over a recent editorial on "What It Means to Love Israel." Farah has something of a unique perspective as "an Arab-American Christian whose grandparents fled the dhimmi life of the Muslim-dominated Arab world." He makes some valid points about the unsuitability of the "two-state solution" to the Arab-Israeli conflict now ostensibly embraced by the editors of CT, particularly under the current political circumstances in Palestinian-controlled territories. But his key disagreement is with the "lukewarm" tone of the editorial, which "tries to chart a middle course between 'replacement theology,' that suggests the modern rebirth of Israel has no biblical or prophetic significance, and 'dispensationalists,' who believe Jews have a God-given birthright to a land never claimed by any other people during an 1,800-year diaspora."

Specifically, Farah is referring to these pivotal paragraphs in the CT editorial.

At its root, the term Zionism simply means support for a Jewish return to sovereignty in their ancient homeland, with a majority Jewish culture. At the beginning of the 19th century, two streams of Christian Zionism emerged. One, associated with politicians William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury and high-profile preachers Charles Simeon and Charles Spurgeon, was Reformed and covenantal in its theology. It strongly influenced British policy. The other was developed by Edward Irving and J. N. Darby and would later bear the label "dispensationalist." It shaped American support for the restoration of the Jews.

It is important to remember both groups. Mainline Protestant partisans of Palestinian "liberation" frequently dismiss Christian support for Israel because of its association with dispensationalism. Yet dispensationalists make up only 10 percent of America's 52 million white adult evangelicals, and there is now and long has been broader evangelical support for a secure homeland for the Jewish people in the Middle East.

The key complaint offered against dispensationalists is that they talk as though God had separate plans for saving Israel and the church. And contemporary Reformed Christians are accused of having a "replacement theology" in which the church takes the place of Israel, inheriting all of God's promises with no remainder for the Jewish people. The one view tends to find no fault with Israeli government decisions as long as they do not compromise dispensational theology. The other view tends to consider the continued existence of the Jewish people a historical anomaly with little theological significance.

Separate plans for Israel and the church is a linchpin of dispensational theology. Dispensationalists do not "talk as though God had separate plans for saving Israel and the church." They take it as an indisputable fact and make it an article of faith that the church must be removed from the scene before God can deal again with Israel as his covenant people.

"Replacement theology" is a term of derision coined by dispensationalists to discredit the covenental point of view, but it does not accurately reflect the theological substance of that view. In reality, there is no such thing as "replacement theology" except in minds of dispensationalists who cannot substantively refute the arguments of covenental theology. It would be impossible to "chart a middle course" between one theological viewpoint and a shibboleth invented to shield that viewpoint from substantive criticism. What the CT editorial demonstrates, unwittingly, is the undue influence on theological debate of a point of view which is held by "only 10 percent of America's white adult evangelicals."