Sizing Up Sizer's Biblical Refutation of Christian Zionism
2:43 PM Monday. Today on my morning walk I listened to "A Biblical Refutation of Christian Zionism" by Stephen Sizer as a step toward my goal of identifying and evaluating ten of the most important theological arguments against Christian Zionism. In this short video, Sizer presents three arguments that fall short of that mark. Maybe I shouldn't have started with Sizer. There was little method to my choice. I don't know whether Sizer is highly respected in Christian anti-Zionist circles, or in Christian theological circles more generally. Let me do some more research before I continue writing. Ah. According to Google Gemini, the most highly cited anti-Zionist Christian theologians include Naim Ateek, Gary Burge, Mitri Raheb, and Stephen Sizer. Other influential voices include John Stott, Tony Campolo, and John Piper. None of these appear to be Catholic or Orthodox. A search for leading anti-Zionist Catholic theologians returns no results from Gemini, but it does reference an important 1904 meeting between Pope Pius X and Theodor Herzl. Here is the thread:
From a Catholic perspective, Sizer's three theological arguments are very regressive, especially since Vatican II. What about from an Anglican perspective? Well, it turns out that describing Sizer theologically as "lightweight Anglican fringe" probably wouldn't go far enough. This is how Gemini puts it:
Stephen Sizer's anti-Zionist views are not representative of the official Anglican position. The Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion have officially condemned his actions and statements, which have been found to be antisemitic.... In 2023, a Church of England tribunal found Sizer guilty of antisemitic misconduct and barred him from exercising licensed ministry for 12 years.
The Church of England has, however, been rather critical of Christian Zionism, perhaps overbroadly and perhaps to the detriment of a more nuanced Anglo-American position:
On the other hand, perhaps UK recognition of Palestine avoids turning the Palestinian right to self-determination into a "bargaining chip." I suppose my counter to this significant critique is that American Christian Zionism doesn't oppose Palestinian self-determination, it opposes the premature recognition of a Palestinian state, a view that is both legally principled and diplomatically nuanced:
The UK once shared this view. In surrendering its own conscience to the authority of the ICC, i.e., to the politics of Rome, if it is fair to put it that way, what has the UK gained, and what has it lost, in the furtherance of true Christian justice, according to the Protestant Church of England?
(At first glance, the ICC PTC seems to admit that it has based its jurisdiction over the OPT on a political determination by the Assembly of States Parties that Palestine is a state, not on a judicial determination by the Court itself, taking into account such factors as a permanent population, defined territory, functioning government, and ability to enter into negotiations with other governments. On further examination, the matter is rather more complex:
But my time this evening has expired, so I will have to leave my consideration of Christian Zionism here this week.)
Video at top: A Biblical Refutation of Christian Zionism.
End 6:09 PM.
Just a quick follow-on to Sizer's three arguments, none of which strike me as likely to make it into my list of the top ten. 1) I don't see Jewish religious and ethnic responsibility, including the perception of a divine mandate to exercise that responsibility, as in any way in conflict with an inclusive biblical vision of human flourishing for all religions, nations and ethnicities. 2) Respect for indigenous land rights, both Arab and Jewish, alongside respect for the civil rights of minorities and the non-indigenous in areas under lawful Jewish and Arab administration, is more my sense of what Christian Zionism is about than an absolutist view of maximalist Israeli land gains. More broadly, Christian Zionism seeks justice for all nations, not just for Israel. The vision of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and justice in Christian Zionism is inclusive and universal. 3) I don't believe in the unilateral reconstitution of a Third Jewish Temple in disputed portions of Jerusalem, and I don't think the dream of a Third Jewish Temple by some Jews and Christians means that Christian Zionism as a whole or in principle is committed to the destruction of the Dome of the Rock. As I see it, and I trust at least some other Christian Zionists see it, lawful multilateral reconstitution of a Third Jewish Temple could respect Jewish rights to religious self-determination and serve as a distinctly Jewish house of prayer for all nations, consistent with the message of the Tanakh, the New Testament and the Quran. Of course, I am admittedly very much now in the minority among Christian Zionists in my vision of a vegan Third Jewish Temple, but there is a credible biblical basis for my view.
ReplyDelete