Gary Burge: Whose Land? Whose Promise?
Importantly, Burge offers his readers anecdotal evidence of the maltreatment of Palestinians which those Christian Zionists who take an “Israel right or wrong” stance do well to note and engage with. He also calls for a more balanced and objective Christian treatment of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and throughout the book he draws on his own personal experiences in the region (he was an exchange student in 1970s Lebanon). Yet in drawing so strongly on many emotionally-charged anecdotes from one of the two communities only, Burge falls into the very trap he wants pro-Israeli Christians to avoid. Thus, while much of his material is worthy of scholarly consideration, it is not always objective. Meanwhile, the author’s at times one-sidedness fails to differentiate adequately between Israeli treatment of Palestinian and Israeli Arabs (even though the latter enjoy some rights not found in several Arab countries). Burge also portrays Palestinian Christianity as monolithic, which is not the case, while some of the language he employs is unnecessarily pejorative and compromises his objectivity. After all, it is this very emotion-charged rhetoric that has been one of the enduring problems when exploring this conflict.
Moreover, Burge’s focus on the Old Testament theme of treating the alien fairly in order to demonstrate Israel’s failings towards Palestinians today is also partial and one-sided. He fails to discuss how in the Old Testament alien inclusion was covenantal, whereby the alien agreed to become a participatory member of the congregation of Israel and abide by the terms of the covenant. Thus, such a biblical theology argument cannot really be brought to bear on the present conflict. Arguably, too, the book demonstrates a certain naivety in its apparent support for aspects of post-Zionism, given that powerful and extreme voices on the Palestinian side call not only for the complete annihilation of Israel but also the restoration of full Muslim control over the land. It is hard to see, then, how a post-Zionist, multicultural state could possibly survive and exist in peace in the present climate with other than the tiniest of Jewish minorities permitted to remain. Besides, the Gaza pull-out has, if anything, strengthened the extremist voices on the Palestinian side, calling into question some of Burge’s views (written prior to the Gaza pullout) concerning what Israel must do to make peace with the Palestinians.
Another problem is how Burge downplays the biblical theme of eschatology. It is indeed true that popular eschatology is often speculative, sensational, and not rooted in good theology. But in reacting against such extremes Burge arguably goes too far the other way, throwing out the eschatological baby with the dispensational bathwater. After all, Heilsgechichte (salvation history) covers the whole of human existence, and if the Church has no overriding eschatological hope to draw upon, what is the point? The eschatological culmination of the age, including its personal and cosmic ramifications, and the promise of spending eternity with Christ are absolutely vital and central aspects of Jesus’ message and mission. Eschatology, then, represents the conclusive outworking of salvation history, while the theme of Israel arguably features strongly in the Bible’s treatment of eschatology. As such, the theme of eschatology in any discussion of whether modern and biblical Israel are one and the same cannot be so lightly dismissed.
Category: In Depth, Summer 2008
Followers
Fans
