When confronted with the fact that Anglo-Israelism has been thoroughly discredited, I've heard numerous Armstrongites over the years justify its continued toleration among them by declaring "Oh well, it's not a matter of salvation anyway!" Now, while this statement is certainly true, it leaves one with the distinct impression that we shouldn't get our panties in a bunch over someone's acceptance of the teaching. Is that, however, the correct way for us to treat this heretical belief? Should we simply shrug our shoulders and walk away? In the final analysis, is Anglo-Israelism a harmless delusion?
From the title which I have chosen for this post, you already know my answer to that question! You, however, may still be wondering why I'm so interested in labeling this belief as harmful. In other words, what is/are my reason(s) for singling out this doctrine as being detrimental to Christians?
In enumerating my justifications for designating this teaching as harmful, I think it is important to begin with what this doctrine does to the way that we perceive Almighty God. In short, Anglo-Israelism distorts our view of God. The teaching portrays God as hiding the identity of his people from the world. In other words, according to this doctrine, God has intentionally deceived both his own people and the other peoples of the world about the "true" identity of the children of Israel! Hence, we can see that this doctrine implies that God is a controlling, interventionist, manipulative, secretive, and deceptive entity. Is such a view of God consistent with what is revealed about him in Scripture? I don't think so.
In similar fashion, this pernicious teaching distorts one's understanding of a number of other very important areas of the Christian faith. For instance, Anglo-Israelism engenders in its adherents a false sense of their own spiritual understanding and status as a Christian. Many of the folks who hold this belief feel like they're in on God's secret - that they have an inside edge on other folks. Indeed, many of them believe that their understanding of the identity of modern Israel is one of the very things which identifies them as a Christian!
Along the same lines, we should point out that this teaching distorts one's understanding of biblical prophecy. The identification of the English-speaking peoples of the earth as the modern-day descendants of Israel causes these folks to misapply all of the prophecies that were directed at ancient Israel! In other words, this teaching causes these folks to misapply God's messages to Israel through Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc. to the peoples of the United States and British Commonwealth. Hence, the entire premise of their interpretation of biblical prophecy is flawed and leads them to erroneous conclusions about what the Bible predicts for both our own time and the future!
It should also be pointed out that this distortion of prophetic understanding has led to the distortion of their understanding of the Christian message! Instead of a message focused on Christ and salvation through him, these folks are focused on a warning message for the English-speaking peoples of the world! Instead of fulfilling the Great Commission which Christ gave to his Church before his ascension into heaven, they are busily occupying their time and energy by being the "watchman" of Israel! If that doesn't qualify as a serious distortion of God's intention and will, I don't know what does!
In the same vein, Anglo-Israelism also distorts and devalues the universal nature of Christianity. What? You remember what Paul wrote to the Galatians and Colossians don't you? He told them that there is neither Jew nor Greek in the Christian faith - that we are all ONE in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11). Moreover, in the Gospel of Matthew, we are informed that Christ instructed his disciples to "teach ALL nations," NOT just the Israelite ones! (28:19) Likewise, this Israel-centric approach distorts and devalues Christ's role in bringing salvation to all of humankind and reigning as the universal ruler of the Kingdom of God!
Finally, Anglo-Israelism distorts a number of other understandings that are very important to the way someone who professes to be a follower of Jesus Christ should view the world. This teaching distorts a Christian's understanding of race/ethnicity. Instead of seeing humankind as being of one blood, it reinforces the view that God has intentionally favored one people over all others - that the advantages enjoyed by the English-speaking peoples of the earth were God ordained! This has, in turn, led to a sense of superiority - a sense of being exceptional among all of the peoples of the earth. In similar fashion, this has distorted the perceptions of many adherents of Anglo-Israelism regarding history more generally speaking - both their own history and those of the other peoples of the earth. Moreover, this pernicious teaching has also made a significant contribution to the disdain that these folks have for science and human expertise. In short, the rejection of genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence which contradicts this teaching has further alienated these folks from reality and the ability to think logically.
Hence, we can see that Anglo-Israelism is NOT a harmless delusion! The spiritual consequences of adhering to this heretical teaching are serious and far-reaching. Thus, while it may be technically correct to say that this isn't a matter of salvation, it would be foolish to dismiss this as a "harmless" diversion.
Miller wrote: “In short, the rejection of genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence which contradicts this teaching has further alienated these folks from reality and the ability to think logically.”
ReplyDeleteThis is a poignant observation. And it raises a serious theological issue. What does God do with people who are deceived? What is their ultimate personal eschatology? In more direct terms, do such people who are out of touch with reality get consigned to Hell? This conundrum is not confined to belief in the fantasy of BI but belief in BI is a prime and dramatic example of this difficult concern.
I am a great fan of C.S. Lewis. But I think he was wrong about how people end up in Hell. Lewis advocated the free-will model of personal eschatology. He believed that Hell is a prison that is locked from the inside and that people make a libertarian choice to be there. Refer to his book “The Great Divorce.” I do not believe that people in a rational state of mind choose to experience bad. I believe God created us to be good-seekers. We may not always understand what good is, but by some rationale we seek what we think is good. Given the choice between joyous heaven and eternal fiery damnation, nobody in touch with reality is going to choose Hell.
People who believe in BI or any other half-baked conspiracy theory are not capable of making a rational free-will choice required by the Lewsian model. Because of limitations in and influences on their thinking, they actually believe that in adopting BI they have made a rational, good-seeking choice. But they are imprisoned in a deception. So the Lewsian free-will model fails because such people really are not free. I do not believe that a gracious God sends deceived people to Hell. Jesus said: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
This is a good argument for some form of post-mortem rehabilitation. And this is a good thing because there are many who profess Biblical loyalty who deny science. They feel they must do that in order to believe a certain interpretation of the Bible. They envision a make-believe war between the Bible and science as do atheists. Science demonstrates that BI is false – especially the science of genetics. Eventually, I expect some overwrought advocate of BI to contend that the science of genetics is of Satan. Just like some Nazi scientists asserted that nuclear physics was incomprehensible to the Aryan mind because it was “Jewish physics.” (Many of the principal scientists on the Manhattan Project were Ashkenazi.) Such arguments are painfully sophomoric.
Miller’s analysis of the impact of BI is fully persuasive. I am trying to deal with the loose end of what happens to people who are never able to recant in this lifetime. No doubt there will be many in the Armstrongist fold who fall into this regrettable state. In fact, I see a bright horizon for BI in the future. It fits well into the growing White Nationalist movement in America. I am glad that we have a God who is full of grace and mercy.
Neo,
DeleteI don't know if you've been following the thread related to this post on Banned, but DW proposed that the acceptance of BI disqualified a person from being a Christian. As you know, I reject the Armstrong notion that Christianity is defined by knowledge. From my perspective, the basic formula is repentance, acceptance of Christ's sacrifice for our sins, receiving God's Spirit, and living a life of loving others. In my view, salvation and righteousness are obtained through Jesus Christ - PERIOD!
In other words, Christians can and do sin (anyone who says he doesn't sin is a liar and the truth isn't in him). Likewise, Christians can be deceived about a host of theological issues. What we believe about transubstantiation, Christmas, Law, Sabbath observance, what happens when we die, etc., etc. is NOT determinative. It doesn't alter God's reality or modify his plans in any way. After all, if our doctrinal positions are determinative, then that makes salvation conditional and not entirely dependent on Jesus Christ! That said, as this post indicated, heretical beliefs can seriously impede our spiritual understanding and walk and must be corrected/rectified at some point (before or after physical death).
We have danced around this issue before - I understand and respect your belief in universal salvation (and I think that that is closer to the truth than most other beliefs surrounding this issue). My own view is that we must choose to accept Christ (that is our part), and that most people will do exactly that (either in this physical life or in the resurrection). However, for me, there are a number of Scriptures which suggest that there will be some folks who will refuse to accept Christ, and they will be introduced to Gehenna or the "second death." It is my hope and belief that this will be a relatively small number of people when all is said and done.
As for the future of BI, I hope you're wrong, but I fear that you may be right! The current climate - the complete disregard for truth, fact, and logic do NOT bode well for the immediate future. And, as you suggested in your comments, White Nationalism/"Christian" Nationalism appears to be very popular among a significant portion of our population. Sad, really sad. I say again: Thy Kingdom come!
By the way, I hope an acknowledgement that I may be wrong is implicit in everything I write. I will happily acknowledge any erroneous beliefs that God points out to me when I no longer see through a glass darkly (and the affirmation of your view would NOT disappoint me).
DeleteYou wrote: “As you know, I reject the Armstrong notion that Christianity is defined by knowledge.”
ReplyDeleteAt first I thought that this was not what you really intended to say. But on further consideration, it occurred to me that about half the people in mainstream Christian churches believe just what you stated. And if that is not enough, C.S. Lewis apparently believed the same thing. As you likely already know, it is the doctrine of salvation called Inclusivism. And it contends, for instance, that if you are a good Buddhist, you will receive salvation just like a good Christian. A good Armstrongist will receive salvation just like a good Christian. And it casts doubt on if there really is anything such as heresy. Another way of saying it is that General Revelation is sufficient for salvation and Special Revelation may be desirable but not required. Yet, another way of framing the issue is to question whether Jesus and his work is the epistemological cause of salvation or the ontological cause of salvation or both. Inclusivists believe that the epistemological engagement with Christianity is optional. And this is what your statement above claims.
I have concluded that Inclusivism is driven by the traditional, and I believe erroneous, interpretation of Hebrews 9:29 which states, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment…” From this Christian infernalists torturously extract the idea that your eternal destiny is sealed at the moment of death. And this inevitably leads to the alarming deduction that all the unevangelized are going to Hell – and quite unfairly. They just happened to be at the wrong place and the wrong time and did not receive the knowledge of Jesus. Given a world that is largely unevangelized, Inclusivism was devised to address the tension between the idea of a gracious and compassionate God and the traditional epistemological interpretation of Acts 4:12 which states, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
As an Evangelical Universalist (I think this term was coined by Robin Parry. It is intended to convey that this is universalism, found among leading Patristics, that requires faith and repentance just like traditional Christianity. Personally, I don’t like the connotations of the term “evangelical.”), I do not interpret Hebrews 9:29 in that way. I believe that there will be an opportunity for everyone to receive salvation and this suggests a post-mortem process. Hell is then purgative and rehabilitative and not destructive. This also means that explicit knowledge of Jesus and Christianity can be made an absolute requirement for salvation. Therefore, in Christ, salvation is both epistemological and ontological.
But as I mentioned in previous discussion we have had on this topic, I do not know how much knowledge and what kind is required for salvation. The so-called “thief on the cross”, who was likely not a thief at all but an insurgent, seemed to have no previous knowledge of Jesus and his teachings and no history of Christian works and no baptism and Jesus admitted him to Paradise. So where is the threshold of knowledge for salvation? I don’t know. But the thief seems like an extreme case and yet he still did know Jesus at the very end.
So if someone believes in BI does it mean they are not Christians? I don’t know. I think the question pivots on whether Christ is living his life in that person. For the thief maybe there was just a spark of that life in extremis. We do see through a glass darkly and the role of knowledge in salvation is one of the more difficult topics I have encountered in Christian theology. I look forward to the resolution of this issue in the future life in Christ.
The following excellent comment was posted yesterday on the blog "Banned by HWA" as a response to the same article which appears here:
ReplyDelete"The irony is that the USA and Britain were neither Sabbath keepers or COGlodytes. The religiously-affiliated among them were beholden to "Mystery Babylon's harlot daughters". They didn't receive "great material blessings" because of their godliness - according to BI, they received it because of their supposed ancestry!"
This is an interesting observation, and further investigation into the religious beliefs of the founding fathers brings up other issues that some would find problematic. For instance, if you were to study the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, you would find that while Thomas Jefferson considered himself a Christian of sorts, and valued what he considered to be teachings of Jesus Christ, he did not believe in His divinity, meaning he didn't believe that Jesus Christ was God. He also didn't believe in His miracles, or resurrection. See https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/jeffersons-religious-beliefs/ Benjamin Franklin is said to also have had doubts about the divinity of Christ.
I have heard COG ministers speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue, depending on whatever point they might be highlighting at a given moment. For example, when they are speaking of the sins or moral degradation of modern day U.S. or Britain, they will often point to the Christian beliefs or moral convictions of the founding fathers or early settlers, using these things as evidence of why God will "punish" these modern nations. But, when they are speaking of the "great blessings" God has bestowed on these nations, it comes down to the idea that these peoples were physical descendants of Abraham, and they were blessed as a result of promises made to Abraham and his offspring, that in their view could not be explained or kept in any other way.
The above reasoning however, creates a conundrum of sorts. If the blessings of these nations was given solely because of their ancestry, and their own obedience, beliefs, or moral behavior was never a condition or reason for the blessings to be bestowed, then how can you justify punishment for what would be considered disobedience? And, how do you define what you mean by that, if the "Christianity" of the the founding fathers passed as simply belief in a creator, but not necessarily the belief in the divinity of Christ, or His miracles, or resurrection?
Furthermore, it seems a bit hypocritical to on the one hand praise the beliefs of the early settlers or founding fathers, even though in most cases those beliefs wouldn't match the COG definition of "true Christianity" while at the same time condemning others today who hold similar beliefs and deeming them "false" Christians. You simply can't have it both ways.
Concerned Sister