Jim

Renouncing supersessionism, or “replacement theology” as it is more usefully often called, became “the Christian sin” after the wake-up call of the Nazi holocaust. Penitence for anti-Semitism has dominated institutional and doctrinal Christianity in the mainstream since then. So it’s been easy to pick it up as a club to wield in the debate to shut down criticism of Israel. But it’s disingenuous and a lie — not because criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic or supersessionist — it isn’t — but because it’s an easy out for Christians. You’re right: some evangelical Christian Zionists (important qualification – increasing numbers of evangelicals are supporting the justice for Palestine cause because they’ve been there and seen what is going on, and they are working out the theology) are supersessionists, or what I would call Christian exceptionalists or triumphalists. What is fascinating about this is if you look at it, you see that the mainstream, “progressive” Zionism is a form of supersessionism. The people who accuse other Christians of implicit anti-Semitism because they are critical of Israel are practicing a form of Christian triumphalism. What Christians needed to confront when they confronted Auschwitz was what was it about Christianity that could have brought this about, how did this poisonous doctrine come about, and why did Christians support it institutionally. Instead they decided to reinstate Jews as God’s chosen, un-spiritualize the land promise and offer Palestine to the Jews as a guilt offering, and then hitch a ride on the Jews’ new status in a kind of Judeo-Christian triumphalism. In this theology (and this is what three generations of clergy have been schooled in), of course the Palestinians don’t count. Muslims — heck, anybody not Jewish or Christian — don’t count (except to be economically colonized through charity).

Yes, it’s politics. And it’s also driven by what I would call — with apologies to Bonhoeffer — cheap penitence.

As our Quaker friend often says, “This friend speaks my mind”. What you capture in your blog is a nice crystalization, and distillation of both the events leading up to the General Assembly and what occurred during the meeting days. And more, you speak of next steps and partnerships. As a Presbyterian who traveled to General Assembly and got caught up in the flurry of actions, I needed some clarity about what occurred and the implications for what had happened. You greatly contributed, as always, a sense of the “wind”. Thanks for that gift. Bill

This may not be the best place to pose this question, and perhaps not even you the best to answer it, but I have been reading about Presbyterian events as an outsider with interest and am particularly intrigued by the invocation of supersessionist theology as a particular form of anti-Semitism in the debates. The question that keeps coming to my mind is to wonder if I am wrong in thinking that in fact the theological position of a great many Evangelical and Pentecostal “Christian Zionists” is supersessionist — that certainly would be my impression. Which further makes me wonder if the theologians who raise this issue in their readings or misreadings of those they see as critics of Israel do the same regarding supersessionism on the part of Christian Zionist “friends of Israel.” If they do not, it would seem to indicate that the real interest is not theological at the end of the day, but to do with worldly politics.

Thanks for considering this — any help from you or other readers to sources of insight about this question gratefully accepted.

Thanks for the update on the action at the General Assembly of PCUSA. What you describe is encouraging. That when a church takes a stand on justice, then others have to adjust their rhetoric. The action of the Presbyterians might strengthen the resolve of other national churches, including the Lutherans.

Your blogs are thoughtful and honest.

With good memories of your time with us at Wartburg Seminary,

Jim Bailey

Thank you for the account of the dynamics at Minneapolis (and your book). Here is at least one Canadian Presbyterian following developments in the PCUSA with great interest and appreciation. I am sure there are lots of others.

Our Assembly this year also included representatives from both the Palestinian Christian community and the Canadian Jewish Congress – although the emphasis of the document under discussion (“One Covenant of Grace” http://www.presbyterian.ca/webfm_send/5040) from the Church Doctrine committee was historical and theological rather than directly addressing the situation on the ground. Maybe next year.

Blessings and Shalom.

Barry

It is such a delight to read your analysis of what went on at GA concerning the MESC Report “Breaaking Down the Walls”. Your perspective is so accurate and so hopeful. We have our Presbytery meeting in 4 days and I plan to make use of it when I talk to people there. I want to thank you again for being part of our work to make sure that the Report as adopted was faithful to the intent of the Committee and for all of us who are working for peace and justice in Israel/Palestine.

Carolyn