|
Defending Christian ZionismIn response to Stephen Sizer and John StottUnconvinced on IsraelDEFENDING CHRISTIAN ZIONISM IN RESPONSE TO STEPHEN SIZER AND JOHN STOTT David Pawson seeks both to rebut the views held by Stephen Sizer and put forward more clearly what he describes as ‘classic Zionism’. In his introduction he describes a range of both pro- and anti-Zionist positions. He critiques the most widely held ‘pro-Zionist’ view, namely dispensational pre-millennialism. He describes ‘Five covenants’ of Scripture, the ‘Two Peoples’ that God deals with, the ‘Promised Land’ that is irrevocably given to ‘ethnic’ Israel, and the Second Coming and Jesus’s reign from Jerusalem. In an appendix he criticises a John Stott sermon on the subject of Israel. David Pawson is trying to be faithful to Scripture as he understands it. He wants to be irenic in tone without losing his strong convictions of what is true and right. Readers will have to judge whether he does that successfully. He tries to steer clear of political discussions about human rights, terrorism and the like, so that he can concentrate on biblical teaching. But for some, it is precisely the lack of ‘justice’ in present-day Israel and its abuse of human rights which raises huge questions about the role of the nation theologically. By failing to address these important matters, Pawson has surely not helped his case. Fighting over land?Those coming from the ‘covenantal’ position of Reformed theology will be less than happy with the way that he fails to interact with centuries of careful exegesis and theological reflection on the role of ‘Israel’. Professor John Murray, in his great work on Romans, took a view of ‘ethnic Israel’ and future large-scale Jewish conversion (which Stott endorses) that is similar to what Pawson presents. But he did not agree on the huge significance of the land/state of Israel that Pawson subscribes to. Pawson dismisses this position of a ‘spiritual future’, but not a ‘present territory’, as aberrant and held by those not willing to really face up to a plain reading of Scripture. But this is hardly fair. Murray, for example, very carefully worked out his views, changing his understanding and delaying volume two of his commentary precisely because he wanted to be as accurate as he could to the message of the Bible. But he still did not come to Pawson's conclusion on the land. Others, of a post- and an a-millennial persuasion, will react in a similar way to his dismissal of their understanding of Revelation 20 and his explanation of classic pre-millennial views that the Lord will return to Jerusalem to reign for a thousand years before the judgment. Many will feel that his Second-Coming exegesis is very weak. It comes over, too, in his last chapter, that those who are critical of modern ‘political Israel’ are seen to be, in essence, opposed to God’s purposes and perhaps opening themselves to serious judgment by him. It felt a bit threatening, I am afraid. In a review of Pawson’s autobiography a while ago, I said that it struck me as a ‘puzzling book’. I am afraid this offering feels like more of the same. It left me unconvinced. Ray Evans is part of the leadership team at Grace Community Church, Bedford © Evangelicals Now - August 2008 |