Whilst comments mysteriously seem to disappear and reappear on Ben White’s blog, and comments are off on Stephen Sizer’s blog, Seismic Shock likes to take a different approach, highlighting interesting comments.
Here’s a comment left by CZ on a recent post, which I think could make for some interesting discussion and reflection:
Ben White asks:
‘A question worth asking then, is whether you or I would simply accept the loss of our country, or if we too would be ‘rejectionists’?’
Funny how he never asks whether Jews were ever simply going to accept not returning to the land of Israel. Where does he think they should have gone in 1945 ? Someone needs to ask Ben White this question.
It’s important to study what post-Christendom means for different Christians. Some post-Christendom thinkers are anti-Israel, and want a secular ‘one-state solution’, which basically mirrors their view that Britain, for example, should be a secular state with no established church.
Other post-Christendom thinkers, including a lot of Americans, for example, but many others too, are pro-Israel because of their theology, believing the Jews have a right and a destiny to return to their homeland. These people’s attitude to ethnic diversity is very much like that of liberal Jewish figures like Louis Brandeis, who think Israel should be a Jewish state, but who think that a)this doesn’t mean the state is *religious*, and b) are therefore consistent in agreeing with having a secular state elsewhere, one that respects ethnic and religious diversity.
As the Church of England is still established, there aren’t that many post-Christendom thinkers in Britain who get a voice (of course Baptists are, but they don’t seem to talk a lot about Israel in public). So studying how American and other Christians think about Israel is important to understand where the British traditions of political theology migrated and thrived.