18 January 2006
PROMISE ?
Baptist Minister Dr Mark Tronson, the Australian Cricket Chaplain and Chairman of Well-Being Australia writes that it’s been a pleasure listening to, and then reading Peter Jensen the Sydney Anglican Archbishop “Boyer Lecturers” http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/mission/boyer/
I felt that, here was someone who articulated with much skill the Jesus challenge.
Peter Jensen’s fifth lecture “Jesus and the Millennium – Will He Never Come Back?” challenged my thinking on “literalism and Biblical promise” as much of the Old Testament he takes as a teaching tool for the Church
He illustrates this by presenting an Islamic view as opposed to pro Israel literalism which challenges “nationalistic ethics”.
The argument he presents is not that dissimilar to another Anglican theologian’s, Naim Ateek of the “Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center” in Jerusalem.
Naim Ateek, the author of “Justice and Only Justice – A Palestinian Theology of Liberation”, has become a major source of increasing opposition to pro-Israel Christianity.
JoAnn G. Magnuson, the Interfaith Relations Director for Bridges for Peace, a Christian Mission which concentrates its efforts promoting Jewish-Christian relations is just one of many similar Missions which disagree with both Peter Jensen and Naim Ateek.
“Ateek is one of the primary opponents of Christian support for Israel. Sabeel has been leading a frontal attack on the whole concept of Christian Zionism since they hosted a congress at Notre Dame, the Catholic Convent and Congress Hall in Jerusalem, in April 2004. The conference theme was, ‘Challenging Christian Zionism’. They are calling Christian Zionism ‘the major heresy of the 21st century’,” Magnuson says.
Sabeel’s strategy is to portray Christian Zionists as adherents of dangerous end-time fantasies and to convince U.S. denominational church financial agencies to remove from their portfolios any corporations that do business with Israel, portraying Israel as an “apartheid state.”
This public relations war against Christian Zionists undermines the credibility of those who support Israel for biblical reasons and the divestment campaign helps undermine the confidence of those who would support Israel for moral and historical reasons.
One question therefore, is how does one of theological repute muster a defense for a more literal “emphasis” of the Old Testament in order to combat such aggressive and media savvy views?
One radical biblical and philosophical notion is to use the argument of “biblical promise”, that the descendants of Ishmael are “promised” the blessings of God.
This comes back to Peter Jensen’s conclusion as to whether a “promise” is valid.
Genesis 25 records the generations of Ishmael. Kedar is his second son. Isaiah 60:7 says of Kedar and his descendants, in just one such “promise”:
“All the flocks of Kedar will be gathered together to you, the rams of Nebaioth will minister to you; They will go up with acceptance on My alter, And I shall glorify My glorious house”.
I have been in the fortunate position in my Ministry having considerable contact with sub-continent peoples through Cricket and Hockey and preaching in “Arabic speaking” churches and youth groups for 28 years.
Anyone who has ministered within such Christian circles speak endlessly of Semitic people’s astonishing forgiveness and Christ like attitudes whose passion is for their people group to follow the Lord Jesus Christ.
The critical question is whether this Isaiah “promise” holds validity? Or is it little more than a message of the time, and we interpret a “spiritual message” as best we can?
If this “promise” holds validity then so too the prophets’ voice on Israel, with whatever theological and political challenges these might bring our way.
On this theological issue with all its difficult ramifications (either way), I cannot bring myself to be in the Peter Jensen or Naim Ateek camp.
Dr Mark Tronson
Discussion
No comments for “Jensen and Jesus – one response”