Shut up, Pat...

I'd like to respond to Pat Robertson's comments in a few ways...

1) I'm all about the First Amendment. The guy has a right to say whatever he wants to say in any forum he chooses. He happens to have a national forum because of his historical involvement in politics and a tv show that is underwritten from his personal investments and forutes (which means that he can stay on tv even if no one is watching or sending in money). But what I'm frustrated by is that he allows himself to be labeled an evengelical leader. Again, he can say what he wants. He can label himself how he wants (or allow others to label him without correction). But I guess the bottom line is that he doesn't speak for me...for what that's worth. And I wish he would shut up on these things...

2) His comments beg the question about the modern role of Israel in God's work in this world. Robertson comes from a theological bent that claims Israel continues to have a significant, if not central, role in God's work. But I'm not so sure that the Bible is quite that clear.

From an historical perspective, the theological bent, called "dispensationalism", which holds to the centrality of Israel, has only been around for a relatively short time. This theology, which is also the cental thought-process in the Left Behind books series, came about at the Niagra Bible Conference in the mid to late 1800s. It's gotten a lot of traction since then, but it's not like it's been embedded in Christian theology for thousands of years. This isn't to say that we can gain new understandings of scripture...so this point alone doesn't disqualify it as a valid interpretation of scripture...it's just important to realize that this theological bent is not a "given" when it comes to interpretation.

From a biblical perspective, I think a case can be made that though Israel's role in the world was fulfilled when Christ came. Disclaimer: I'm still fleshing this out in my own mind, so these thoughts are dynamic, not concrete.

Israel was chosen by God for the purpose of revealing God to the world. The idea is that He would be their God and they would be His people. He would rule that nation like kings ruled others. The world would know God because of the way Israel lived out their covenant with Him.

When it came to obedience to the Law and the spirit of grace that God desired to express to the world through Israel, they fell short as a nation. But they were supposed to. You see, people are not equipped with the inner motivation or ability to live holy and graceful lives. They weren't. We aren't. They fell short.

God's ultimate design was that He would be perfectly revealed through Israel. And he was. But not through the people, but through the One who came from Israel...Jesus. When one sees Jesus, he sees the Father (according to the Bible). Jesus was a Jew and came from the nation of Israel. Therefore, God's greatest revelation of himself was through the nation of Israel.

After Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascention, something significant happened. There was a biblical shift away from the land/nation of Israel toward the "spiritual" Israel. Paul explains in Romans that those who believe are the new Israel. In other words, God is no longer showing himself to the world through a state, but through a world-wide community of Christ-followers. We are his people. He is our God. And because His Spirit dwells within us in grace, power, and love, we are equipped with all we need to reveal God to the world around us.

Therefore, I do not believe that the physical nation of Israel plays a central role in God's plan for the world. I think that the Bible uses the end-times imagery of that nation to speak of the spiritual realities which we have yet to experience. the Bible gives us a hook on which was can hang out hat, so to speak.

If God is to be personified, then I think He has a special place in his heart for Israel because they were a part of his redemptive plan.

This is already longer than I intended, so I'm going to stop there, for now. I'll probably revisit this in the future and continue to flesh it out.

Back to Pat...not only does he misrepresent evangelical Christians, but I think he also misrepresents God. That's my opinion. And I'm thankful for the First Amendment which makes it okay for me to say it!

Peace,

M@