Gerald R. McDermott

Summary: Argues that the Old Testament promises of restoration for Israel, including restoration to the land, can be supported in the New Testament, and that Christian Zionism enjoys a long history of theological support not rooted in premillenial dispensationalism.

A book arguing for a fresh perspective on Christian Zionism strikes me as a brave project. Zionism, once representing the hopes of an oppressed people, now is often cast at the source of oppression of other peoples, particularly Palestinians. Likewise, “Christian” Zionism, often associated with premillenial dispensationalism, has fallen in disrepute in both liberal circles for whom any form of Zionism is reprehensible, and among a significant portion of the evangelical community who reject the two “dispensations” or covenants of dispensationalism, and see the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy through a new people of God comprised of both Jew and Gentile which heralds a trans-national kingdom of God. This view, with which I will admit to being sympathetic, is often referred to as supersessionism. It is for example, reflected in these summary comments on Romans 11 by John R. W. Stott in his exposition of Romans:

“It is clear . . . that the ‘salvation’ of Israel for which Paul has prayed (10:1), to which he will lead his own people by arousing their envy (11:14), which has also come to the Gentiles (11:11; cf. 1:16), and which one day ‘all Israel’ will experience (11:26), is salvation from sin through faith in Christ. It is not a national salvation, for nothing is said about either a political entity or a return to the land. Nor is their any hint of a special way of salvation for the Jews which dispenses with faith in Christ” (p. 304).

Gerald R. McDermott and his other contributors have mounted a formidable rebuttal to this contention. In the introductory section, McDermott contributes two chapters arguing that Christian Zionism has enjoyed a long history in the theology of the church, from the earliest centuries to Barth and Niebuhr in more recent times and that this has by no means been confined to premillenial dispensationalism.

The next section makes, beginning with Craig Blaising’s chapter on hermeneutics, the argument that the advent of Christ does not nullify the promises and hope of Israel, which may be found in the New Testament as well as the Torah. Joel Willets then shows how this is the case in Matthew noting the early Jewish context, the geographical perspective, Davidic messianism, the “turfed” kingdom, and the focus on Jerusalem, the temple, and the atonement. Mark Kinzer makes a similar argument for Luke-Acts, particularly noting the repeated returns to Jerusalem in Acts. David Rudolph tackles Romans giving a memorable summary of his argument in the acronym “GUCCI”:

G The Gifts of Israel
U The Uniqueness of Israel
C The Calling of Israel
C The Confirmation of Israel’s promises
I The Irrevocability of Israel’s election

Part Three concerns “Theology and its Implications.” Mark Tooley traces the mainline embrace, and eventual disenchantment with Zionism, more recently followed by some evangelicals. Robert Benne contributes one of the most fascinating chapters, exploring Reinhold Niebuhr’s Zionism that flows from his theo-political realism as well as his sense of the unique place the Jews have occupied in human history. Robert Nicholson then makes a case that present day Israel has neither violated international law, nor, to any significant degree, the Torah in its occupation of land and treatment of ethnic minorities. Shadi Khalloul, an Aramean Christian makes a similar case, while acknowledging ways Israel has failed in areas of human rights. He contends that as the one democracy in the region, they have done far more to uphold religious and civil rights than the surrounding nations. The book concludes with recommendations for continued scholarship and implications for the church.

One of the subtexts of this discussion is the existence of the present day State of Israel, and how it is to be understood in light of prophecies concerning restoration of Israel to the land and how it is to be regarded as a moral actor on the world stage. Concerning the former, they resist the temptation of dispensationalists to fit this into a “last days” scheme while conceding that the survival of the Jews through history and near-miraculous victories against surround foes may argue for some form of “pre-consummate,” or proleptic fulfillment, anticipating the final fulfillment of all things in Christ’s return. Several authors even argue for a restoration of the nation to the land prior to any form of spiritual transformation. While arguing that support for Israel never warrants support for unjust policies, the authors are fairly muted in their discussion of Jewish settlements of occupied territories and the “fence” that has made life so difficult for many Palestinians.

I was most interested in the arguments from the New Testament but in the end personally found them wanting. They seemed to be readings between the lines that extend promises for the people of Israel to the land that are not explicit in the biblical text. Darrell Bock acknowledges this problem (p. 312), but did not, to my mind give an adequate response. The review of historical theology was helpful, because I, like many would have equated Christian Zionism with premillenial dispensationalism. In terms of making the case for the State of Israel from Christian principle, I thought the four essays in Part Three were the strongest part of this work. In particular, the last two, by Nicholson and Khalloul, provide a counter to the media treatment of Israel, which has been increasingly hostile, and often one-sided in their view, in recent years.

The work challenged me to look harder at the texts around Israel’s hope and how we understand these. In particular, when we speak of a “new heaven and new earth,” and a “new Jerusalem” as the focus of a physical existence in the resurrection, what place is there for Jews, whether as a corporate entity, or at least for Jews, as John Stott speaks of, who trust in Christ? Is there a landed hope for them? Is there any significance in the present day State of Israel?

I do think these scholars have more work to do to make their case. They, along with the publisher, should be commended for engaging this discussion afresh. At the same time, while the term is convenient shorthand and connects to historic realities, I would hope that a better phrase than “Christian Zionism” might be found, for I fear some will never get past a title with this phrase, which would be unfortunate.… (mais)

Author McDermott shares why he changed his thinking on Israel in relation to Biblical prophecy. He offers reasons why Christians should care about what happens to the nation of Israel and attempts to dispel the error of replacement theology. He also discusses the land occupied by the Jews and offers reasons it belongs to them. While McDermott does a fairly good job, I find myself wishing my pastor would write a book on the topic because he does a far better job of explaining the Jewishness of the Gospels and discussing Israel in relation to prophecy. I received an electonic advance review copy of the title from the publisher through NetGalley for review purposes.… (mais)

http://sharperiron.org/article/book-review-great-theologians-brief-guide

Author Gerald McDermott describes the purpose for The Great Theologians: A Brief Guide as follows:

I wanted to be able to provide a short and accessible introduction to some of the greatest theologians—so that any thinking Christian could get a ballpark idea of what is distinctive to each. And at a level they could understand. Challenging but not overwhelming. Provocative but not frustrating. An introduction that could inform and provide a gateway to deeper study if so desired. (p. 11)

While setting a very high bar for himself, McDermott largely succeeds in clearing the bar in this well written introduction to eleven theologians.

McDermott introduces us to Origen (AD 185-253), Athanasius (AD 296-373), Augustine (AD 354-430), Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-74), Martin Luther (AD 1483-1546), John Calvin (AD 1509-64), Jonathon Edwards (AD 1703-58), Friedrich Schleiermacher (AD 1768-1834), John Henry Newman (AD 1801-90), Karl Barth (AD 1886-1968) and Hans Urs von Balthasar (AD 1905-88). As can be seen from the dates for each theologian, these eleven span nearly 1,800 years in the development of Christian theology.

McDermott freely admits that there are many names he could have added to the list, but these were the eleven he considered “to have had the most influence on the history of Christian thought” (p. 13). He explains further: “There were others who also had great influence, and a future list maker might prove one or more of my eleven were edged out by one or more with even greater influence” (p. 13). He clarifies by saying, “That doesn’t mean that the theology of every one has been good. In fact, some have done damage to Christian thinking. For example, Schleiermacher…. But I include him in this book because his influence has been enormous” (p. 14).

The author introduces each theologian with a brief biography, followed by an overview of the main themes of their work. He follows each overview with a more detailed explanation of one key theme that each is known for, then a discussion of what we can learn from the theologian. Finally the book includes a short excerpt from one of the theologian’s writings. To encourage further investigation, McDermott provides a list of both primary and secondary sources at the end of each chapter, along with discussion questions useful for groups or personal reflection.

Highs and lows
The chapter on Luther has a mixture of highs and lows. McDermott correctly summarizes Luther’s view of justification when he writes,

Therefore for Luther imputation is not a legal fiction whereby God justifies us on the basis of something that happens outside us, declaring righteous a person who is no different after faith that he or she was before faith. Quite the contrary—faith brings union with Christ and “God’s love…poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 5:5). It is on this basis that the legal verdict of justification is pronounced. (p. 86)

The lows in the chapter on Luther come when McDermott includes the views of several revisionist Luther experts, leading to the conclusion that “the split between Catholic and Protestant churches in the sixteenth century was theologically unnecessary” (p. 89). The writers of the anathemas from the Council of Trent certainly did not believe the split was theologically unnecessary!

McDermott does not hesitate to state where he disagrees with the conclusions of those he is writing about. This is most evident in the chapters on Schleiermacher and Barth.

Schleiermacher is generally regarded as the “father of liberal theology.” McDermott states,

Schleiermacher was revolutionary because he reversed the traditional method for doing theology, which had been to go first to God’s revelation for knowledge of God.

Schleiermacher went instead to religious consciousness as a new foundation for religious belief…. This new method explicitly rejected the old. To know God, Schleiermacher taught, we do not to [sic] go to Scripture or to creeds…. Instead, he said, we must retreat into ourself [sic] and abandon external things, both intellectual and physical. (p. 141)

McDermott then shows how this new method results in rejecting orthodox teaching regarding Christ, God, and the Bible. One of the key paragraphs of the book is the following:

Schleiermacher teaches us the danger of relying on personal experience for authority. Personal experience of the risen Christ is a must, but we must not rely on that experience to teach us who Christ is. We must look instead to what the apostles gave us in the New Testament and their reading of the Old Testament. This is an objective revelation from God that helps correct and guide all our subjective experience. Evangelicals and Pentecostals, who rightly teach the need to experience the gospel, must nonetheless be careful not to let experience become what teaches the gospel. Otherwise they risk falling into Schleiermacher’s trap of constructing a religion of humanity. (p. 146)

Sadly, even much of fundamentalism has gone the path Schleiermacher blazed, substituting an individual’s conversion experience for the gospel. Perhaps if more were made aware of what Schleiermacher taught and the consequences that flowed from it, we would see the need to emphasize the objective truth of the gospel. This book will provide a tremendous service if it has that result.

McDermott also takes Barth to task for his denial of Scripture as revelation of God: “[R]evelation for Barth was an ‘encounter with a crucified man,’ not a collection of words on a printed page” (p. 179). McDermott summarizes Barth’s view of Scripture: “the Bible by itself is not the Word of God, but can become the Word of God when the Holy Spirit makes it come alive for its reader. The Bible itself is not revelation itself but a witness to revelation” (p. 181). His critique of Barth continues, “Barth’s understanding of the relation of revelation to Scripture does not do justice to the Bible’s own witness to itself” (p. 181). McDermott also criticizes Barth’s unique view of election, correctly observing that Barth’s view leads to universalism—all saved in the end.

Weaknesses
I do have several criticisms of the book. The chapters on Origen and Athanasius—the weakest in the book—contain statements that at best are not clear, and at worst could be considered heresy. In speaking about Origen’s contributions to the doctrine of the Trinity, McDermott writes, “suggesting that Jesus was eternally generated by the Father and therefore different from all other created beings…” (p. 20, italics added). This is not clearly written, and could lead one to think Origen was a proto-Arian, teaching that Christ was a created being but using a different mode of creation. More seriously, he writes of Athanasius, “Athanasius emphasized that the Father gave his full divinity to his Son, and the Son gives his divinity to us…. This shows the Father is fundamentally giving. The Father gives the gift of himself to the Son, and the Son gives the gift of himself to believers” (p. 38). This is not what Athanasius taught, but is much more along the lines of what Arius—Athanasius’ chief opponent—would have taught. Since McDermott later clearly supports the orthodox teaching regarding Christ as being divine in His very essence, autotheos, I believe the book just employs careless language at this point. Given that the primary audience for this book is those who need an introduction to theology, such careless statements are a serious flaw.

I also disagree with McDermott’s view of the believer’s union with Christ. McDermott in several places seems to indicate that our union in Christ results in the believer’s divinization. In the summary of the themes of all the theologians covered in the book, McDermott writes,

This is the mystical union of Christ with his church, so that every believer is in union with Christ—because Jesus has given us his very own self…. It is the theme of deification or divinization, which we saw in Athanasius, Origen, Augustine, Luther (his “happy exchange”) and especially Edwards. (p. 205)

While Origen and Athanasius say some things that approach this idea, Augustine, Luther, and Edwards would not have said that the believer becomes divine through the mystical union. This view results from a misreading of 2 Peter 1:4—that we share in the divine being. A development of the biblical view of our union with Christ is beyond the scope of this review, but we do not become God; rather, we become like God, in His image, through sanctification.

In the closing summary chapter, McDermott states,

If there is a thesis of this book, it is this: The best way to navigate our way theologically is to use the Great Tradition of orthodox theology as a lens through which to evaluate all competing traditions…. But their capacity to contribute to Christian theology should be gauged only by weighing them against the long history of the Great Tradition, led by the great orthodox theologians outlined in this book. (p. 209)

While I support this thesis, we have to question the inclusion of Schleiermacher, Newman, Barth and von Balthasar (and possibly even Aquinas) as “great orthodox theologians.” As mentioned above, McDermott does point out departures from orthodoxy on the part of each of these, but was there not one influential orthodox theologian since Jonathon Edwards?

As stated above, the book contains some passages I cannot support. Overall, however, McDermott has accomplished his goal of providing a readable introduction to some of the great theologians of church history. When we consider the difficulty of summarizing in a single chapter the immense literary output of a number of these men, we can admire McDermott’s effort. I recommend the book for those who desire a better understanding of the history of theology but caution that readers should exercise discernment.… (mais)