Here is Noam Chomsky discussing Evangelical Dispensational Premillennial Pre-Tribulationalist Christian Zionists. This is my heritage, I mean theologically; I have since moved away from this particular “eschatological” hermeneutical system, but I still inhabit this sub-culture within the Evangelical community. Nevertheless, I simply wanted to register an observation on Chomsky’s commentary. He is wrong and right. It is true that the more extreme elements in “Christian Zionist” camps give Israel carte blanche in their local and geopolitical movements; but this is not generally true of most Dispensational Premillennialists. Most of them qualify their support of the nation of Israel in a way that tries to make a distinction between spiritual support and political support. Of course, and this is where Chomsky may have a point, since in principle Dispensationalists (I say classic ones) collapse the spiritual (e.g. Israel as God’s “covenant people”) into the political; the functional outcome of this, in principle, is that those I noted as “extreme” earlier are in fact probably following the logic of their belief system to its proper conclusion (and when I say proper I mean simply logical conclusion).
What do you think of Chomsky’s analysis?
Well, I’m not real familiar with Mr. Chomsky, but it’s a bit concerning that he uses such a broad brush to paint with! An argument from the extreme (they’re just “looking for a route to Armageddon”…they “want all Jews to be exterminated, except 144,000”) usually means that one is either ignorant of what they speak of, or very calculated. I think it’s probably the latter in this case. The scary thing is that a calculated half-truth can be applied with far more damage than when the half-truth is left to exist on its own. Just consider the fawning acceptance by the interviewer of everything that Chomsky said.
However, Mr. Chomsky does do a good job at pointing out the crazy uncle in the EDPP-T family, one that many of us would rather pretend isn’t one of ours. Funny thing about family gatherings; the friends you invite will always remember the crazy uncle – that’s how they’ll define the whole experience! “Can you believe what that guy said?” Or, “Can you believe what that guy did?” Of course, the rest of the family behaved themselves quite nicely…but nobody remembers that!
The big question becomes, “What do we do with our crazy uncle?” Do we just ignore him? Kind of hard to do when he makes such a scene. Do we ask him to quiet down because he’s making people think we’re all crazy? Unfortunately, that tends to only light him up even more! We could host our next family gathering and just not send him an invitation! Of course, when he finds out about that then he’ll start showing up to everything so that he doesn’t miss anything. Hmmm…I wonder how Jesus dealt with His crazy uncle?
So, to answer your question, I guess I’m going to take Chomsky’s analysis with a grain of salt. Because, after all, he may be the the crazy uncle of his family! π
Hey Pastor Daniel,
Here’s a link and short wiki intro to Noam Chomsky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
I do agree, in principle, that Chomsky engages in a hasty or sweeping generalization; but, in fact, I think he has a point. I think your uncle analogy is apropos in regards to the “functionality” of most dispensationalists (at least the ones I know, and they are legion), but as I noted in the post; I also think that Chomsky’s point has teeth, insofar as it identifies a crux premise of classic (and even progressive) dispensationalism0. That premise would be that the nation of Israel represents God’s political point of contact in the world, through the anticipation of the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (in toto), which is political in orientation. It is this “functional” logic that I think weighs heavy on the minds of so many “Christian Zionists” (dispensationalist). In short, I think this is why dispensationalists will support the nation of Israel over Palestinians, “politically,” every time. There is the belief that it’s good vs. evil, Christians/Jews vs. Muslims/Palestinians, Arabs. And this “spiritual” battle has taken on political garb because of theological/theocratic reasons.
There is also the oft appeal to the Abrahamic Covenant, by dispensationalists, as well.
In the end, I agree with you on Chomsky being a crazy uncle though π .
Chomsky’s views reflect many of the errors and assumptions of the Left. The idea that Israel prefers expansion over security is ludicrous. The underlying error is the assumption that if Israel retreated to 1967 borders that they would then have peace. This is clearly a myth since none of the Palestinians have agreed to ever cease the war against Israel. The so called 1967 borders were there in 1967 when they were attacked. So remaining within those borders did not give them peace in 1967 did it?
I agree that the Christian Zionists are apocalyptically motivated and that is a serious problem. They are uncritical of Israel’s behavior and that is counterproductive. This is a glaring problem for our trying to reach Palestinians with the gospel. The hatred and animosity between the groups is now cultural and for Christians to be exclusively identified with one side is a tragedy we should have avoided.
My position is that our Christian stance relative to Israel is one rooted in the gospel itself so that we call Israel to return to the faith of their fathers in recognizing the One who has come as Messiah. The United States can certainly work within the international community to help in promoting the conditions necessary for peace. Unfortunately, we cannot undo the past, but going forward we can continue to correct our eschatological perspective, help Arab and existing Palestinians Christians to further the work of the gospel and redouble our efforts to reach the Jewish people worldwide.
Jon,
I really couldn’t agree more with you!
When’s your blog going on-line? I’m waiting … π