Newsletter:
Vol. 4. Iss. 3
15 July 2003
Reconsidering Christian Zionism, cont'd.
A second component of Jewish Zionism is the notion that the State of Israel represents restitution and moral compensation to Jews in the diaspora for generations of persecution and suffering at the hands of Christians, especially in the 20th century. This entitlement is earned, it is claimed, because Jews have suffered uniquely throughout their long history going back to the time when they lived as a people in the land of Israel. Many Israeli and non-Israeli Jews share this sentiment and consider themselves Zionists for holding it. They believe that there should be a place where Jews can be safe and that Jews as a people should be protected in their land. The establishment, protection and continued preservation of the State of Israel is considered in this view to be a moral imperative. Such an appeal to moral legitimacy does not require any concomitant appeal to biblical prophecy or theology.
When one considers the two foregoing characteristic features of the thought and self identification of contemporary, mainstream Israeli and non-Israeli Jews, one begins to get a feel for mainstream Zionism in contradistinction to fundamentalist Zionism. These two characteristics—that the establishment of the State of Israel is both a moral imperative and a political necessity—are common to those who identify themselves as Zionists. These two primary characteristics define religious and secular, fundamentalist and mainstream, elite and grassroots Zionists.
Why then are Christians who harbor similar convictions not identified as Zionists unless they are biblical literalists? Because we have incorrectly equated Christian Zionism exclusively with biblical literalism and the millenarian, dispensationalist theology that frequently accompanies it. However, fundamentalist, dispensationalist Christian Zionism is not the dominant form of Christian Zionism in America or anywhere else. If it were, it would be easy to critique and confront, because biblical fundamentalism is neither historically savvy nor theologically satisfying to mainstream Christians.
I maintain that a more pervasive, pernicious and sophisticated form of Zionism has been overlooked, which I am calling mainstream Christian Zionism. Were it not for this form of Christian Zionism, the more easily identifiable, easily critiqued, unsophisticated form of Christian Zionism would not have the effect that it does. Mainstream Christian Zionism does not depend on biblical authority for its legitimacy. It is rooted in the genuine moral sensitivities of mainstream Christians. Its appeal is to moral imperatives and political necessity rather than personal piety. It is cultivated throughout mainstream churches and in the biblical academy, and it is entrenched in the political institutions of the West, especially in America. It is far better organized, far better funded and far more politically potent that its fundamentalist cousin. Mainstream Christians have conveniently absolved themselves from complicity in the Zionist enterprise simply because they are not fundamentalist.
Reconsidering Christian Zionism in its mainstream form leads inevitably to vexing moral conflicts. It requires re-examination of widely held assumptions about ethnic identity and nationhood and the moral implications of these. It raises issues that are considered taboo in the church and takes us into perilous academic no-fly zones. But intellectual honesty requires no less.
