Traditionally wary of evangelical Christians for understandable reasons, most Jews would be surprised to learn that evangelicals have long stood among Israel’s staunchest supporters. Gerald McDermott of Roanoke College traced the history of this support, examining its theological roots and the ambivalence that now threatens it, at “Evangelicals and Israel,” a November 21 meeting sponsored by the Center’s Evangelicals in Civic Life project. McDermott was careful to note the similar but distinct perspectives of evangelicals and fundamentals. The two groups “agree that there is a connection between biblical promises and contemporary Jews and the land of Israel,” he said. “But evangelicals more than fundamentalists question the justice of the modern state of Israel.”
Evangelicals inherited their “eschatological interest” in the restoration of the Jews in Israel from such Puritan forebears as Increase and Cotton Mather, McDermott explained. In the early eighteenth century, Jonathan Edwards held that the Old and New Testament covenants were integrally related in God’s single plan of redemption, and argued strenuously against the deists who denied the religious link between Judaism and Christianity. Later evangelical thinkers continued to assign an important role to Jews and their return to the land in the end-time drama of history. This accounts for evangelicals’ pro-Zionist sentiments in the twentieth century and their enthusiastic response to the founding of Israel in 1948—sentiments and enthusiasm not shared by mainline Protestants or by Roman Catholics.
Fifty years later, however, the Palestinian confl ict has caused many evangelicals to question the justice of Israel’s position. While most fundamentalists still endorse “the Zionist project and see it as the fulfi llment of biblical prophecy,” McDermott said, “evangelicals are more divided.” Some evangelical thinkers dispute the signifi cance of the actual land of Israel in God’s promise. Others accept the centrality of the land but recall the “biblical pattern of removal from the land” when the terms of the covenant are violated, and deem this especially important “when considering the notion of peace.” For evangelicals, peace entails not only the absence of violence but also the establishment of a “just and moral relationship” between feuding parties. And modern Israel presents no such picture. In light of the history between Christians and Jews, however, as well as the political complexity of the situation, McDermott warned evangelical critics to—at the very least—“speak with humility.”
After McDermott concluded with a few specific observations about the refugee problem, religious freedom, and claims to the land, respondent Richard Mouw of the Fuller Theological Seminary said he agreed with McDermott’s view that Christianity had not replaced God’s covenant with Israel. It had, rather, expanded the scope of the covenantal promises. Mouw stressed, however, that Israel has a responsibility within the covenant to seek justice for all, to show mercy, and to try “to walk humbly with God.”
Center vice president Michael Cromartie moderated the spirited discussion that followed. Those joining in included Joel Belz of World, Marilyn Borst of Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding, Serge Duss of World Vision, Terry Eastland of The Weekly Standard, James Hutchens of Christ Church (Arlington, VA) and Christians for Israel, William Inboden of the U.S. State Department, Diane Knippers of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, Joe Loconte of the Heritage Foundation, David Neff of Christianity Today, Victor Pentz of Peachtree Presbyterian Church (Atlanta, GA), Ralph Reed of Century Strategies and Stand for Israel, Lynn Sauls of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Donald Wagner of North Park University, and John Wilson of Books & Culture.
