New Covenant Theology: The continuing dissemination of Christian antisemitism

 Prologue to the review:

Why I ended up reading this book: These are two comments that I received from a reviewer regarding an abstract for a book that I was proposing to write dealing with the issues of the Christian Bible and Rape Culture.  

Sentence from my abstract: This  monograph looks at the structural aspects of for Rape Culture in Christianity from the perspective of children who have been sexually abused within its environments.

Comment 1: What about those who argue the opposite? E.g. Helen Paynter in 'The Bible Doesn't Tell Me So'? [today's response from me: in an abstract??]

Comment 2: How can you adopt this perspective? What is your legitimacy or authority in doing so? [today's response from me: have you not read my dissertation? or some of my published articles? again: in an abstract? and furthermore, Helen Paynter is legitimate and has authority because why????? she's a Baptist pastor???? she has a PhD in biblical studies???]

Since I hadn't read what Helen Paynter says in her 2020 book, The Bible Doesn't Tell Me So: Why you don't have to submit to domestic abuse and coercive control, I decided that I would look at it. It was not available through Interlibrary Loans, so I stuck it in my shopping cart. However, the book that is being reviewed below, God of Violence yesterday, God of love today?, was available through ILL, so I ordered it. I was horrified at its implicit/explicit antisemitism. I have since removed the 2020 book from my shopping cart. If it is available through ILL at some point, I will order and read it and answer the first question, specifically.

Title: God of violence yesterday, God of love today?: Wrestling honestly with the Old Testament

Author: Helen Paynter

Publication: Eugene OR: WIPF & Stock, 2019

The Rating System: Not really applicable to this book since it does not deal with intimate partner violence, rape culture or with sexual violence of any sort. However, I have serious reservations about this book that will be discussed below, so I thought that I might as well discuss it.

The Review:

First, as the author makes clear "This is a Christian enquiry into the violence of the Old Testament." [p. 16, italics in the original] 

This book reeks of new covenant theology and this was the starting point for Christian anti-semitism beginning in the "New Testament". I doubt that the author would consider herself an anti-Semite but that is the implication when the "God" of the Old Testament (and no, she does not use Hebrew Bible) is the flawed understanding of God that has to be explained and it is only through Jesus that we can clearly see the good God. The heading for this section of her book reads: The Fullest Revelation of God is in Jesus.

To quote: "We begin with the presupposition that we know God is good because we have seen him revealed in Jesus Christ." (p. 16)

To quote: "If we have not formed an opinion of God that is shaped by the biblical testimony that he is altogether good, then such texts do not present a conundrum. But because we have encountered Jesus Christ and studied his words and life and death, they cause a difficulty." (p. 17)

The assumption here is that if you only read the "Old Testament", your view of "God" would be flawed. Does this not imply implicitly, if not explicitly, that anyone who is a practicing religious Jew has a flawed religion or a flawed understanding of the revealed "god"? Of course it does!

There are two sections at the end of the book under the heading, Interpreting these texts today (pp.154-155). The first points out "that when we  attempt to teach them [that is, children] within the fuller context of scripture , where God is clearly not always on Israel's side, and that we do not encourage children to roll in the blood, as it were". (quotes Is. 9:5 at the end of this sentence) The second segment warns "readers not to equate "ancient Israel" with "modern Israel". Now, since she has been proof-texting throughout her book, I will offer only one text in rebuttal: Gen. 15:17, which reads: "... On that day, Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphra'tes, the land of the Ken'ites, the Ken'izzites, the Kad'monites, the Hittites, the Per'izzites, the Reph'aim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Gir'gashites, and the Jeb'usites. (RSV)" The following is a link to a map with discussion that charts this verse: Greater Israel map. This is what "text-proofing" gets you! If you are a biblical fundamentalist, then the only answer to Gen. 15:17 is that of new covenant theology!

The book is full of texts proving that the violence in the Christian Bible has a purpose in God's plan. As I read it, she must believe that by quoting violent verses/passages from the "New Testament", as well as the "Old Testament", she is showing a balanced view to help questioners realize that the "Bible" must be seen as a whole (because, of course, it is God's revelation to human beings).  

I could match Paynter prooftext for prooftext but I won't. I was partially raised religiously in a fundamentalist Baptist environment (preached a sermon at Galilean Bible camp on hiding your candle under a bushel and played the piano for services, attended  DVBS,  was a member of ISCF, YFC (our team made it to the Ontario championships for a memorization of Scripture competition ("New Testament"). Mind you, this means that, rather ironically, when scriptures come to the forefront of my mind even today, they are first and foremost in the form of the King James Version) and various revival meetings). My parents didn't see the harm in it, I suppose. However, as soon as the United Church opened a summer camp, that's where my sisters went.

Concluding Remarks: This book contains many of the problems that I believe are, at their core, harmful to a healthy Christianity. There are other issues that I could bring up but I am only concerned with antisemitism as the substrata to the whole book. The problem is that what this book brings to the table is a rather skillful intertwining of the Christian Bible, Baptist theology and its form of new covenant theology. And this is how Christian antisemitism continues to be disseminated.

Glossary:

New Covenant Theology: This is Christian theology - direct from the pages of its primary text. It is embedded in most forms of Christianity whether acknowledged any longer or not. It says that all of the previous covenants that Yahweh/God had with the ancient Israelites that one sees in the "Old Testament" (testament being another word for covenant) are superseded by the "new covenant" that Yahweh/God instituted by the death of Jesus (var. his Son, God himself incarnate. etc.) dying for our sins. And the "New Testament" is where we find this! It is not "new" as some of the Internet links suggest but that is neither here nor there. There are various forms of this. However, in none of them do the Jews come out well. [It can get very complicated but this is the gist of the belief.]

DVBS: Daily Vacation Bible School

ISCF: Inter-School Christian Fellowship, an organisation for high school students within the school

YFC: Youth for Christ

This is an abomination in a western democracy

Ottawa considering hate charges against those who boycott Israel

"The government's intention was made clear in a response to inquiries from CBC News about statements by federal ministers of a "zero tolerance" approach to groups participating in a loose coalition called Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS), which was begun in 2006 at the request of Palestinian non-governmental organizations."

I could not believe this when I heard it on the news this morning. I was horrified. I am teaching a course on 20th century German history, and this sends chills down my spine. In my course, I am trying to get my students to understand how good people slowly walked into participating in one of the more horrific events in the history of the world.

First, my positions & I do realize that I live with a certain level of discombobulation on the issue:

1. I would never take part in BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction), the boycott of Israel. However, it worked with South Africa and apartheid - but only after supported by western governments. In the final analysis, my position would be "a pox on both their houses".  When I think of what is going on there right now, I weep for all those that are displaced by war and for all the dead. On the other hand, the historian in me selfishly thinks about all the artifacts, and past worlds that are being destroyed. For better and worse, the ancient middle east contains the founding blocks of western and Muslim civilizations.

2. I am in total disagreement with the church that I grew up in (the United Church of Canada) and its one-sided position on this issue. I wish that they could focus more on forcing a solution rather than blaming one side more than the other. There is plenty of blame to go around, believe me. 

3. I do not support the building of Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

4. The situation is so f!@#$ing complicated. All parties need to be held to account, and that includes the west who set up this appalling situation in the first place. I cannot even begin to write about the historical mess that brought us here. I am only teaching one small part of that mess. 

5. Anti-semitism is a construct of Christianity. This is an unpopular position to take, but nevertheless, it is true, and, as such, those societies that are based on the Christian mythologies need to take ownership of the part that they have played in creating this mess. Christian anti-semitism has now morphed into a bizarre form of secular anti-semitism. The Jews are to blame for everything (for god's sake, even the American Indian Movement and some Canadian First Nations peoples jumped on the anti-semitic bandwagon - for example, somewhere on the AIM website is a lecture that smacks of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - if it has not been pulled down, go look for it. As one of  my students said, "The poor Jews, they can't cut a break!")

6. I support the right of Israel to exist. My personal history does not allow me to do otherwise. I do not support the Fundamentalist/evangelical support of Israel - it is, in its own way, blatantly antisemitic. One day I will write about my trip to Israel with a bunch of fundamentalists (don't ask - just to say, that my mother really didn't know what she was getting us into), and (to keep it simple) its up front - "so sad that the Jews don't really belong on this land because they aren't saved, etc., and won't be there at the rapture" crap.

Books to read (with links to Amazon site):
Robert R. Wistrich's A Lethal Obsession
John G. Gager's The Origins of Anti-Semitism
William Nicholls' Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate 
William F. Buckley, Jr.'s In Search of Anti-Semitism

HOWEVER:

1. Boycotting the state of Israel is an acceptable method of protest. We live in a democracy and we can choose to boycott who/what/where we will. I joined a general boycott of Thailand over its lack of child sexual abuse legislation. At a personal level, I no longer watch Woody Allen films - I can't stomach them. The  same goes for Michael Jackson's music - no matter how good it is, I just can't stomach it. I don't expect anyone else to think the way that I do; I don't believe that those who think differently are "evil".

2. The state of Israel just voted in Netanyahu with enough seats to create a government with the extreme right. So much for a peace settlement. "Dead to me, they are dead to me" was my immediate response. (As I said, discombobulation)

And the point that takes us right back to the beginning of this post:

3. The Harper government is beginning to do to the Muslims, what the Germans did to the Jews. This government is turning the Muslims in Canada into scapegoats, creating a fear scenario that could easily morph into something far more sinister. Just look at their position on Omar Khadr. It is a slippery slope as history tells us. There is, in all humans it seems, an unease about the "other", that is, those who don't look like us, don't think like us, don't believe like us. The NSDAP tapped into that in Germany; and Harper is certainly trying to tap into that in the Canada. Is it "needless to say", that Europe and the United States is falling into that trap as well. It is a thin line that they are all walking.

4. In part, this is a political move on the part of the Harper government to appeal to its fundamentalist Christian right base. (Although I do believe that there are other personal motivations by members at play) The religious justification for this one-sided extreme support of Israel is based in a particular millennial interpretation of  "the end". Some of them believe that all the Jews will convert - thus heralding the end; some of them believe that the final battle between good and evil will be fought on the fields of Megiddo (as my mother said on that trip to Israel - "you don't really believe that" - out loud, on the bus - I had to shush her with the "yes, Mom, they really do").


As Bonhoeffer told us: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”  There is also the unattributed adage: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Those who are boycotting Israel are doing something in the face of what they see as evil. That I find their position at times extremely simplistic and problematic is true. But people like to take simple black and white positions - demonizing the other is so easy. Something has to give in the Middle East - the backlash against modernity will not go on forever - the violence and cruelty of the medieval period of western European Christian society can be considered somewhat analogous to what is going on in the "middle east". Of course, that is for next semester's history course.