AOMIN teammate Jamin Hubner continues his vendetta against the modern state of Israel:
Whoa whoa whoa. Sloooow down. This is remarkably twisted. You’d think by reading this that the Arabs in Palestine hated Jews inherently, and that they were just running around killing every group of Jews they found. You’d think that there really wasn’t any good explanation for why there was Arab violence against Jews. “They’ve always hated the Jews, that’s just what Arabs do.” Perhaps that’s not Feldman’s mindset, but isn’t that a common attitude today? We have to ask: is it really that simple, and is it even true? Is middle-eastern violence explained simply by believing that all Arabs naturally hate Jews?
Hubner sounds like one of those CNN reporters (e.g. Christiane Amanpour, Fareed Zakaria) who, when hijackers crash a passenger plane, shouting Allahu Akbar, express puzzlement over the motivation, cautioning the viewers not to “jump to conclusions.”
Why were 7C Jews massacred in Medina? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why were 7C Christians massacred in Alexandria? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why were 11C Jews massacred in Morocco? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why were 17C Jews persecuted in Yemen? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why were early 20C Armenians massacred by the Turks? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank
Why are Christians persecuted in Nigeria? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Somalia? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Sudan? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Eritrea? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Mauritania? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Chad? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Ethiopia? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Indonesia? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank. Why are Christians persecuted in Pakistan? Must be because Israel is building settlements on the West Bank.
Or maybe they should consult you on your opinion before they come up with one of their own.
ReplyDeleteI am troubled by your rush to throw all of AOMIN under the bus because you disagree with something that Hubner wrote. I realize there is a history between you two, and I am wondering if that hasn't clouded your judgment on this.
Frankly, I don't really think that this post was worthy of posting as it simply derides others Christians for their differing opinion.
You know this isn't really fair to Jamin, Steve. After all I'm sure Hubner is sophisticated enough to realize the underlying rationale of pervasive poverty in the Muslim world which is exacerbated by the money grubbing Jews.
ReplyDeleteThere's also the overwhelming historical evidence of the murderous tendencies of Arab/Palestinian Christians toward the Jew which undercuts your argument.
Wait a minute...
In Christ,
CD
Mel,
ReplyDeleteWhat I find curious is the split-personality policy of AOMIN on Islam. What they give with one hand, they take back with the other.
On the one hand White debates Muslims and defends Acts17 against persecution.
On the other hand, teammate Hubner is constantly reciting the Hamas narrative.
What White builds up during the day, Hubner tears down at night.
Yes, AOMIN does need to make up its mind about the role of Islam in geopolitics.
Steve:
ReplyDeleteTeam Apologian (the name of the blogging team, as distinct from the ministry) has a variety of members with theologically diverse views.
For example, Hubner is amil - but there are members who are pre-mil and post-mil.
As another example, at least two of us are Presbyterian, whilst others are Baptist.
There will be points where members of the blogging team take positions on issues with which other members of the team disagree - even strongly disagree.
I realize this doesn't necessarily contradict anything you've written above - it's just a point of clarification that I thought might be useful.
- TurretinFan
TF writes,
ReplyDeleteTeam Apologian (the name of the blogging team, as distinct from the ministry) has a variety of members with theologically diverse views.
In all fairness, I certainly recognize that distinction. Yet, if one is allowed to post on the main blog, I also recognize some investment of authority in that a team member speaks on behalf of the ministry. If anything, at least as I see it, the person is in league with the main thrust of AOMIN's doctrine and purpose.
Now certainly Jamin is posting his views on his own, personal blog, and his opinions do not necessarily reflect those of AOMIN. However, Dr. White has taken it upon himself to engage what I consider to be a major apologetic issue with Christians: Islamic theology and apologetics as it interacts with Christianity. Just listening to the past two podcasts as he has answered Laurence Brown, he aspires to engage Islam with the highest levels of integrity.
But at the same time, one of these team members is acting as a useful idiot by uncritically retelling the leftist revisionist meta-narrative of the Palestinian conflict all for the purpose of taking shots at "Dispensationalism" and "Zionists." Even if he is acting on his own, I find that a bit problematic due in part to his relationship with AOMIN.
"Even if he is acting on his own,"
ReplyDeletePerhaps I just took that the wrong way, but I want to be clear that what Hubner posts on his own blog quite definitely is him acting on his own.
-TurretinFan
So. As you see it then, are you of the opinion that there is enough of a disconnect between what Jamin may write on his own blog (even if he deviates from what AOMIN is doing) and what he frequently posts on AOMIN there is really no harm or foul?
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Hubner's writings, the following admonition by the apostle Paul comes to mind:
ReplyDelete"But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear."
I am not saying Hubner is prideful. My point is that there is a danger in not seeing the nature of the church vis-a-vis Israel.
(1)The church is grafted into Israel, not Israel into the church.
(2) The new covenant was made with "the house of Judah and the house of Israel," not with the church. Humanity may be grafted into it. I.e, God's grace is extended to Gentiles.
(3) There is a distinction between Israel and the church, but not a separation.
The last three assertions were not made by a dispensationalist. They were made by Walter Kaiser.
I am going to give Hubner the benefit of the doubt for now thinking that he is going through the anti-dispy cage stage that some young Reformed believers go through when they begin their Reformed/covenant studies. Truth be told, I had similar sentiments in the mid 90's coming out of a staunch Ryrie dispy background. But as in many cases, the pendulum balanced out for me to what I think is most faithful to Scripture.
Hubner has zeal and is sharp, and as he continues to be more widely read I hope he will attain better knowledge of the biblical relationship between Israel and the church.
Speaking of being widely read, I do want to say that I do not get the feeling that he is conversant with scholarly dispensationalism from the exegetical writings of Blaising-Bock-Saucy. Most criticsism, not just from him, seems to be focused on old-hat dispy and hyper-dispies. I think he is writing a book on hyper, so it makes sense that he is reading their material. Not exactly sure if there is a need to interact with hyper-dispy, since I have only met a few in my life time. Nevertheless:
To quote Kenneth Gentry:
"Progressive dispensationalism is a giant step in the right direction, so much more acceptable than the two-step of old-line dispensationalism. To re-phrase a 1960s Oldsmobile commercial: This isn't your grandfather's dispensationalism."
In respect to the modern state of Israel:
I have on my bookshelf Benny Morris' 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War. I have read it. There are many vital facts and truth in the book. And no one can accuse Morris to being a "Zionist." It's a 500 page book but worth the read, and that Yale publication would be a good start for Hubner since it is a sober treatment of the making of the state of Israel.
"why did the Jews need a state of their own? This is one of the questions rarely asked about Israel, especially from such Zionists
Actually, it is just the opposite, it is the first question that Zionists ask, hence, zionism.
Hubner may not see this, but there is a theological cause for the world hating the Jews. It is not by accident. It is not an anomaly that has occurred for a century. Indeed, it is prophesied in Scripture that this would be the lot of the Jews.
Scripture testifies that when the Lord comes back as king and rules from Jerusalem the nations will give glory to God, and part of this glory (and irony) is the fact that the world has persecuted and hated the Jewish people through the ages.
And the other irony is that the Jews have hated their Messiah and rejected him as Lord.
But God in his sovereignty at the end of this age will create love in the hearts of the nations for the people of Israel (and God), and will create love in the hearts of Israel for their Messiah.
I'm not sure I can answer that question. Let me try to clarify where I stand.
ReplyDeleteFrom my standpoint:
(a) posts on personal blogs by the bloggers are not implicitly "approved" by the other bloggers
(b) posts on the main blog are only implicitly "approved" by the blog owner but not necessarily by the other bloggers
(c) while allowing someone to blog for one's team implies some kind of approval of the person, it clearly does not (in the case of Team Apologian) extend to major things like sacraments and church government, much less relatively minor things
Suppose that Hays' analysis is correct - White is building up by day but Jamin is tearing down by night (on some particular issue). Is it not really up to White to decide whether he wants to continue to associate with Jamin? Can't he associate with him without adopting all Jamin's expressed views?
I dunno about you, but I'm all about reciting the Hamas narrative three times a day, facing Mecca. I don't think the modern nation-state of Israel has a special religious significance, after all.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Steve, this follows.
Alan: Excellent post.
ReplyDeleteOne additional note:
The nation of Israel being "reborn" as a primarily Jewish nation and through such unique circumstance is not an accident.
The only item that Hubner really has any traction on is that some claim that Israel is somehow infallible today. Israel is (up to this date) still a secular nation that doubts God and rejects Jesus the Messiah. A lot of the newspaper exegetes like to brush right by that glaring truth. A number of the popular Zionist Christians are very poor exegetes and that makes the whole camp an easy target, especially for big-brained Presbys. =)
The hyper-Zionist/Dispy movement that amounts to "ISRAEL IS GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE, WE MUST SUPPORT THEM NO MATTER WHAT" is simply grist for the mill of the Reformed Amillennialist but is not the position of sane Biblical scholars.
Sane people recognize that Israel coming back to the same land as a specifically Jewish nation is a significant eschatological sign. But they also recognize that the spiritual renewal foretold by the major prophets of that regathered Israel has not yet taken place. Heck, the ingathering hasn't even been completed yet.
Note Ezekiel's dry bones -- the dry bones physically came together but there was not yet life in them. When the Holy Spirit moves to bring them spiritual life they will repent and believe just like every other new covenant believer. That hasn't happened yet.
Until that time, yes, they are a secular nation and are far from infallible. But at the very least, they are also a unique nation and a sign that should sober us to the times and seasons in which we live.
I do cringe when I see Christians taking actively anti-Israel positions, supporting her enemies, particularly when given the facts yet choosing to ignore them in favor of propaganda. I wouldn't want to be actively opposing God's future plans. That looks too much like Jonah, imho.
If you are a-mill but honest enough to not just sit around playing games with strawmen and propaganda, but instead desire to remain neutral, do like Dr. White and avoid the subject altogether. That way you're not offending anyone by caricaturing reality and you're also less likely to find yourself slipping into antisemitism or bitterness toward the olive branches broken off that will one day be grafted back in.
God bless.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete