On Spurning God's Word

On Spurning God's Word 

Israel - Middle East 
Friday, July 18, 2014 
Alf Cengia 



Last week I listened to a Christian radio program featuring a Messianic Jewish theologian. The central theme of the hour was the current Palestinian-Israeli conflagration. During the calls segment a highly indignant listener dialed in asking how Israel could justify killing Palestinian children.


Dr. Michael Rydelnik responded that Hamas regularly locate their rocket launchers in civilian areas and use Palestinians as political pawns and human shields, even as several secular media outlets have noted. The woman resisted the explanation and interjected Rydelnik's response on two occasions.


Given the nature of the program, I assumed she was a Christian. I wondered if her church had contributed to her anti-Israel view. I've seen my fair share of Christian antagonism against Israel. Or had some other media influenced her?


Whatever the case, churches and religious commentators do exert significant influence on the Christian's worldview. That influence may or may not be biblically grounded. There's a trend in churches reconciling or subverting Scripture based on Cultural Diversity and Liberation Theology.


The latter champions the Palestinian cause against Israel by adopting a blinkered view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It reinterprets massive chunks of Old Testament passages and/or blatantly undermines the books containing the problem passages.


The late Michael Prior and Sabeel's Naim Ateek are examples of two such clerics. Ateek has suggested that some books should be excised from the canon. They don't align with his Palestinian Liberation Theology (PLT) narrative or his idea of a "righteous and just" God.




Shelley Neese observes that:

Quote :

"A central tenet of PLT is that the Bible cannot be taken literally. It needs continuous interpretation to ensure every passage matches PLT’s notion of God.  Anything considered violent, racist, chauvinistic, or unjust is discarded.  This means most of the Torah, including Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, and I and II Kings are thrown out. "

Michael Prior wrote of a lecture he attended which was conducted by Msgr. Montezemolo. The subject concerned the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and Israel. Prior felt it was a "somewhat sycophantic atmosphere" not represented by any Palestinian.


So he "rose to the challenge" and corrected the monsignor. It needed to be done, he wrote, if only because of freedom of worship. Palestinians hade been prevented from "entry into even East Jerusalem" at certain times "since March 1993.” That Gentiles and Jews have been denied prayer access to the Temple Mount somehow missed Fr. Prior's attention. Nevertheless he concluded that he "went home righteous."


Raising the specter of genocide against the Old Testament God, Prior also wrote:

Quote :

"The Holy War traditions of the Old Testament pose an especially difficult moral problem. In addition to portraying God as one who cherishes the slaughter of his created ones, they acquit the killer of moral responsibility for his destruction, presenting it as a religious obligation. Every effort must be made to rescue the Bible from being a blunt instrument in the oppression of one people by another. If a naïve interpretation leads to such unacceptable conclusions, what kind of exegesis can rescue it?"

The so-called Canaanite genocide is a formidable topic; beyond the scope of this article and this columnist. The question is usually raised by atheists wanting to expunge God from the world. It falls in line with the question about why evil exists.


 One wonders if Prior even believed the flood narrative. Would he have excised the flood from the Bible because it didn't suit his delicate sensibilities?


Erich Sauer once commented about difficult biblical passages and faith:

Quote :

"...unsolved questions should never be a hindrance to faith. They can never justify us in disrobing a passage of its evidently intended and real meaning by an inadmissible spiritualizing." ~ From Eternity to Eternity (p 182)

Alice Bach, a professor of religious studies and pro-Palestinian activist, also dislikes the Old Testament. Presumably she isn't impressed with the O.T. God either. She notes:

Quote :

"If one insists upon believing that God gave the land to Israel in a covenant made with Abraham, well then the irascible God waited about two thousand years to return the land, one supposes, by floating the concept of a state of Israel in the minds of the Western powers who (sic) created the United Nations." (Emphasis mine)

But it isn't just the Old Testament God's relationship to Israel that has been revised by an increasing number of modern theologians. Cultural and moral revisionism is trumping Scripture as well.


My wife recently passed me a Patheos article penned by ordained Presbyterian minister Mark Sandlin. It explores 10 Anti-Gay things a Christian shouldn't do while following Jesus. We can heartily agree that one shouldn't hate or discriminate against a gay person. But Sandlin takes it further by telling his readers that it's not okay to withhold ordination to gay people, or to expect a gay Christian to be celibate.


Surfing the wave of the current trend, Sandlin is critical of the "Church's fear of science and logic." He observes of the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate:

Quote :

"While he doesn't necessarily represent all of Christianity, or even a majority, Ken Ham's debate with Bill Nye was a good example of the crux of the problem. Ham's argument constantly circled back to him saying “there's a book (the Bible)” that tells me it's true. Nye, in turn, talked facts and empirical evidence." (Emphasis mine)

In fact Ken Ham and other Creationists rely on good "empirical science" to defend the Bible. There is no contradiction. It is Sandlin who prefers the presuppositions of popular science.


The thing is, that if you can fault the Bible in one or two areas, then that gives you a comfy wiggle room to debate some of the more thorny issues that people object to being confronted with.


Like sin.


In a Q & A session, Sandlin slides further into the pit when he makes a startling claim:

Quote :

"I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was fully human. I believe he needed his diaper changed as a baby and that he probably picked on his siblings at times and, yes, I believed he sinned – after all, he’s human."

He uses Matthew 15:27 as an example of Jesus sinning because he referred to a Canaanite woman as a dog. That the context of the exchange is Christ's testing of the woman's faith is ignored by Sandlin. And for a good reason - he tells us that he kind of likes the idea that Jesus is "fully human."


That appears to be the litmus test of truth - that he likes it. If Jesus sinned then sin isn't reallythat big a deal - right? We are not told how that affects the Atonement (2 Corinthians 5:21). But the Atonement is probably another concept that needs to be redefined by the "progressive Christian."


There's a steadily growing movement within the church against relying solely on Scripture. We've seen the above examples. Progressive Christian leaders would say that it's a good thing because the old ways are too often out of step with modernity and unloving. Scripture presents a restricted menu in a buffet-demanding world.


Personally, I call it apostasy and rebellion.


The Apostle Paul had a few things to say about these matters in Acts 20:29; Gal 1:8-9 and 2 Tim 4:1-4. James 3:1 is another favorite. Then there's Matthew 7:21-23.


Of course, that was way back then.


 We're more informed now, aren't we?




http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=7848