"What's your millennial view? Are you premillennial, postmillennial, or amillennial?"
"I'm panmillennial."
"Which means ... ?"
"It will all pan out in the end." Most Christians are of the opinion that one's view of eschatology, that is, the study of the end times, really doesn't matter and really doesn't affect the life of a Christian. Other Christians will use eschatology as a test of biblical fidelity. In a letter written to President Bush by 34 prominent evangelicals from groups that include Wheaton College, Fuller Theological Seminary, World Vision, InterVarsity, Vineyard USA, Christianity Today and the National Association of Evangelicals, thank President Bush for working towards a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This where it gets theologically hairy. Dr. Jim Hutchins, president of Jerusalem Connection and the Washington-area director for Christians for Israel, denounces the letter, and says, according to OneNewsNow, “I would suggest that the basic theological underpinning of this is
super-cessionism, and that is to
say that the church is the new Israel, that Christians have replaced
Jews as the covenant people of God … [and that] the covenants that God
made with Israel and the Jews are now null and void because they have
not accepted Jesus as the Messiah.” Hutchins calls this Replacement Theology, and holds that the covenant between God and ethnic Israel is still in effect and suggests that Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza. Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary and one of the signers of the letter to Bush, answers the charge of "Replacement Theology" on his blog. He writes, "I do not support a 'replacement' theology regarding the theological
identity of 'Israel' – I did earlier in my career, but I have changed my
view in recent years. God’s original covenant was with the ethnic
people, Israel, and that covenant has not been cancelled. We Gentile
Christians are not a 'new Israel' in a replacement sense. Rather we
have been grafted onto Israel. In these latter days, the Lord now says
also to Gentile Christians, 'but you are a chosen race, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people' (I Peter 2:9)." As attested by a comment posted to his blog, Mouw's view will continue to be called "Replacement Theology" by many who oppose his view. So we have two different theological positions which represent two different policies in the Middle East. But are the theological positions necessarily linked? To look at that, let's take a step back. Mouw's view is representative of what is known as Covenant Theology.
The idea is that God's covenant carries on today in the church. This
view is generally represented by the older denominations: Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans and Catholics. Hutchins' view, that God's covenant is with national and ethnic Israel and still continues, represents a school of thought known as dispensationalism. This view is commonly held among Baptists, Anabaptists, and Bible churches and can be found taught at schools such as Dallas Theological Seminary, Biola, Moody Bible Institute, and others.
I suggest that dispensationalism does not necessitate political support of Israel (which I would call Christian Zionism). There is a dualism within dispensationalism regarding Israel, and it is best represented in Romans 11:28: "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but
from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of
the fathers." On one hand, a dispensationalist will say that ethnic Israel is God's beloved, but on the other hand, Israel is an enemy of the gospel!
Present day Israel is an enemy of the gospel. They actively persecute Palestinian Christians. There are Christian groups in America that give money directly to the Israeli government, and it's a crying shame. Dispensationalists would do well to remember the first half of the verse and give unconditional support to Israeli policies. Dispensational theology teaches that the national of Israel will turn to Christ during the seven-year tribulation prior to the return of Christ after the church is raptured. Given that the Church and Israel are enemies in the present age, why should the Church support Israel? The Scripture says that a house divided will not stand. If or when God restores Israel to Christ, it is then that Christians should support Israel.
Having said that, my theological leanings are in line with Mouw's. George Eldon Ladd has a brief rebuttal of dispensationalism in his book "The Last Things." Among other things, he points out that Romans 9 quotes Hosea regarding who God sees as His people. What was originally applied to Israel is applied to the Gentiles by Paul. Thus, Ladd says, and I agree, that Gentiles are now among the covenant people of Israel. Though I believe the questions of eschatology are worth studying, I personally don't think that a dispensationalist or covenant theologian need to take one side or the other in the Israel-Palestine conflict. What both sides should agree on is that we should strive for peace. Does striving for peace mean that we should work for a two-state solution? Perhaps, but not necessarily. There are some things in the letter that I'm not fully comfortable enough to throw my support behind it. I'm cautious to throw my support towards one particular solution. I'm not convinced that the two-state solution would be stable, and it might give Palestine the foothold it needs to take over the rest of the land, which is among their stated goals. We need to be prudent in our negotiations for peace. Also, the letter places an emphasis on historical, legitimate rights of both the Israelis and Palestinians (and likewise, the Christian Zionists appeal to the historical right of Israel only). An appeal to historical rights seems rather empty. Nations rise and fall and are in a continual state of flux. If you took into account every historical right of every single people group, there wouldn't be enough land even if we had several earths to distribute. So while I would stand by the principle of working toward a just peace that is found in the letter and I would agree that we should not withhold warranted criticism of Israel, I would not be comfortable with many of the specifics found in the letter. One thing the letter emphasizes is prayer for our leaders. Foreign policy is an extremely difficult issue, and we should pray that they would have wisdom in these negotiations.
Most would consider the Southern Baptist Convention among the Christian groups most supportive of war. According to their own Baptist Faith and Message, though, Christians are to seek peace and to end war, and it rightly emphasizes the importance of the gospel to accomplish those ends. I think it's a good statement, so I will close with it. Peace and War It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles
of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of
Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war. The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The
supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in
all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application
of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should
pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace. | 
