The shocking contrast between Jerusalem and Gaza, represented in our television split screens on the day of the embassy opening, may have been designed largely for Evangelical consumption

By Jesse Wheeler

On the 14^th of May 2018, the United States controversially broke with decades of US policy by officially moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, followed soon after by Guatemala, Paraguay, and Honduras. Meanwhile, thousands of Gazans continued to engage in ongoing demonstrations at the separation barrier while Israeli military snipers responded with lethal force, leading on that day to the death of 64 persons. Since the beginning of the demonstrations, 121 Palestinians of all ages have been killed and over 12,000 injured. The split screen coverage contrasting the elegance of the embassy opening in Jerusalem with that of the carnage in Gaza set forth a dramatic scene, one commentator comparing it to Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. Political cartoonists have been particularly caustic in their representations.

For some, the events in Jerusalem and Gaza have become a watershed moment, a time for collective introspection and soul searching. Many diaspora Jewish communities have been undergoing a rather serious moment of self-reflection regarding the country claiming to represent them and their interests. Somewhat surprisingly, numerous Evangelical Christian leaders, who would have otherwise remained relatively silent on the issue, have likewise felt it necessary to take a public stand. For example, President Emeritus of Fuller Theological Seminary Richard Mouw, a master at walking a fine line on controversial topics, spoke out on the issue in an article titled, “To my fellow evangelicals: What you’re cheering in Jerusalem is shameful.”

Of noteworthy importance to religious readers, however, is the bit of trivia concerning who was – and who was not – on the guest and speaker list of the embassy opening. In addition to the expected list of diplomats, dignitaries and political donors, one finds an assortment of prominent American pastors and religious leaders. Of particularly symbolic note were those invited to give the benediction and closing prayer: Robert Jeffress and John Hagee, each the author of multiple books on Israel and apocalyptic anticipation. Furthermore, mainstream Jewish leaders were not invited, while Catholic, Orthodox and other Protestant traditions were also not in attendance.

Analysis

The presence of Jeffress and Hagee in the ceremony – and not others – speaks volumes as to the purpose behind and intended audience for the embassy opening. This event taking place in Jerusalem was meant not for Israelis, nor even American Jews. Instead, it was clearly meant for the American evangelical voter, Trump’s most consistent base of political support. Given the fact that 81% of white American evangelicals voted for Trump and have remained his most reliable political supporters, while other demographics have waned, I don’t see this as surprising. Allegiance to Israel has long been a point of doctrine among these communities, with 80% of American Evangelicals viewing Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Furthermore, Christian Zionists in America outnumber Jewish Zionists ten-to-one. Considering this, the presence of Jeffress and Hagee onstage (both apocalyptic preachers), is not surprising, even as both have been accused of making proclamations deeply offensive to Jewish communities.

What effectively unfolded on our screen was an apocalyptic drama, broadcast in real-time and orchestrated largely for a Conservative Christian audience. The viewer was able to consume vicariously events of “eternal, apocalyptic significance” from the safety of their television and computer screens. While the split screen contrast between Jerusalem and Gaza led many to recoil in disgust at the apparent callousness of the historical moment, for others it was all part of the show. Every drama needs a villain, and if there is anything Hollywood cinema has taught us, it is that “Arabs” make for great villains. It is simply more proof that the “enemies of God” will continue to rage against His purposes and His people.

Furthermore, this situation represents another instance of American foreign policy being set by domestic political agendas and homegrown pop-theologies projected out upon the global stage by means of US political, commercial and military influence. It represents a false matrix of meaning, blanketed over the region without thought or concern as to how such views may or may not reflect historical reality or how the policy ramifications of such beliefs affect people on the ground – be they Israeli, Palestinian, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise. To what extent such theologizing may or may not be consistent with scripture is never asked.

Theological Reflections

What we evangelical Christians are then left with is a conflicting set of (a) theological convictions and (b) historical narratives, each tied to the core identity and moral values of those of us adhering to such seemingly contradictory worldviews. As evangelicals deeply committed to the authority of scripture, questions related to biblical interpretation are of profound importance. For instance, what is the relationship between the first and second covenants? Do prophetic texts refer to events long past, or yet to come? Does our reading of these texts lead us to look for signs of Christ’s imminent return, that we might be ready for him? Or, does it lead us to the pursuit of justice and peace, speaking truth to power at great personal risk? Likewise, questions related to history and historical interpretation are of critical importance as we discuss the “facts” as they exist “on the ground.” As it stands now, one finds wildly divergent interpretations regarding the past and present realities confronting Palestinians and Israelis. As people committed to Truth, to whom do we listen? Is it possible, or should we even try, to bridge the narrative divide?

Until such ideological divides surrounding theology, history and identity are taken seriously, it seems we will forever talk past each other and around in circles despite our mutual presence together under the same evangelical tent. Meanwhile, the people on the ground in the land of Christ, from all backgrounds, continue to suffer. It is at these times that I look in hope to the words of the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians:

¹⁴ For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility ¹⁵ by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, ¹⁶ and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

¹⁷ And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. ¹⁸ For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. ¹⁹ So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, ²⁰ built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, ²¹ in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. ²² In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit (Ephesians 2: 14-22 ESV).