This is VERY unfortunate.

Palestinian and other Middle Eastern Christians who have been victims of Israel’s territorial religion do not share this what I believe is a wrongheaded reading of the Bible. (Just go read M. Raheeb’s “I am a Palestinian Christian” or A. Rantisi’s “Blessed are the Peacemakers: A Palestinian Christian in the Occupied West Bank”. For an American evangelical perspective, see G. Burge, “Who are God’s people in the Middle East?”)

The New Testament teaches that the inheritance of the Land was fulfilled in and replaced by the person of Christ, and the locus of God’s habitation has changed radically with the progression of redemptive history. Therefore the current conflict for Middle Eastern land is something to be mourned, not celebrated, when the Bible is interpreted responsibly.

Sorry about all the theological jargon. I just wanted to interject that the celebration over the ME conflict does not represent the beliefs of the vast majority of Christians. Often the loudest (and the most mistaken) get the most attention.

Thank you, Kyuboem. I respect the work you do, and have no wish to paint all evangelical Christianity with this broad brush. And for the record, I do not believe that most Christians view current events in the Middle East with the unbridled glee of these message-board posters. One needs only a modicum of empathy to be completely distraught over what’s happening.

However, I think one has to acknowledge that evangelical Christianity has become an increasingly powerful political force in recent years. Under the leadership of Karl Rove, the Republican Party has treated churches as an extension of its GOTV campaign in the last two elections (that’s why it harped on gay marriage so strongly in 2004), and the churches have been more than happy to oblige. It’s quite clear that George W. Bush sees himself as a messianic figure engaged in a holy war.

I agree with you that this is not what religion — any religion — should be about. But, sadly, I think that it encapsulates something important about our political reality right now. Would that it were not so . . .

It’s absolutely frightening that there is a cadre of influential evangelicals who help dictate our foreign policy who are completely invested in all out war in the middle east in the belief that this will precipitate the second coming. These folks believe — someone help me out with the basis of this in the NT — that Christ will return after a massive war in which 2/3 of all Jews in the holy land will be killed and the remainder will be converted to Christianity.

…for they know not what they do…

I’m a Christian, however, don’t subscribe to belief in the rapture (small “r”) the way these believers do.

The questions to ask are to the President: “do you believe in the Rapture, do you believe that its time is at hand, and do you believe you have a role to play?”

And the time to ask these questions are now.

There is enough evidence out there that his answers would be, “yes, yes, and yes”, and if so, that should give the entire world pause.

Matt: Thanks for the link to thenation.com that outlines some of the theological problems that Bush has gotten himself into; that’s very helpful. For me, the most frustrating statement that Bush has made (and there have been many) was the “God directed me into war with Iraq” statement. Bush’s extreme individualistic approach to faith has no place in historical Christianity. For Bush’s statement to have any weight, the whole church (and not just a small segment that will agree with you), having searched the Scriptures to check for faithfulness to it, needs to speak into a matter like this. I did not agree when the war first started (as did many of my Christian friends), based on my Christian beliefs, and I strongly object to any messianic self-perception that Bush may have in carrying out his foreign policies, again based on my Christian beliefs.

Evangelicals have not been as monolithic in their support of Bush as is widely believed. His visit to Calvin College certainly showed this. Jim Wallis, a bestselling evangelical author, has been outspoken in his disagreement with the current administration. These are but a few examples. I can’t dispute that many evangelicals have thrown their lot in with Bush; however, many have also disagreed with him, which is something that doesn’t get noticed often.

I do fear for the evangelical community in America as a whole. The seduction of political power, I fear, is propelling some of its ‘leaders’ to become bedfellows with political opportunists (when Christ calls his followers to imitate him who came to serve, not to be served), as well as into a naïve trust of those who claim to adhere to Christian teachings (when Christ taught his followers to watch out for wolves in sheep’s clothing and to examine their fruit). I know that many evangelicals share my concerns.

Mikhail: Many evangelical Christians don’t subscribe to the view that you’ve described—an extreme manifestation of Dispensationalism, which happens to be a homegrown American teaching and which is an oddity in the confession of the historical, worldwide church. I’ve mentioned in an earlier comment Christians from other parts of the world; the vast majority of them will not hold to this view.

I can’t deny that many ‘Christians’ have perpetuated injustice in the name of Christ. But this has happened in spite of the message, and not because of it. I hope you will consider the message, which, if rightly obeyed, has the power to bring about true peace and reconciliation, and not an escalation of conflict.