autistikeit:
It was Ann Coulter.
[cut for length]
Odd that this should come up today, Iâm slogging through readings on the theology of the Protestant Reformation.Â
Yes, what you are describing and what Ann Coulter is espousing is a common form of Protestant theology. I can give the rundown of where it comes from and what it looks like generally, but I think @the-lion-machine might have a sense of what it is like on the ground, as he has more direct experience with Protestants than I do.
This idea of âperfected Jewsâ comes out of the early church as early Christians sought to put as much distance between themselves and the Jewish communities that spawned them. The cultural-political reasons are legion, having largely to do with Jewish revolts in Judea and the Roman response to them, much of which formed the backdrop to why the Gospel accounts blame the Jews for the death of Jesus instead of the Romans. But suffice to say, this didnât decrease the amount of persecution the early church suffered from the Romans, but it did highlight an identity question that was essential â how did Christians conceive of themselves if they were not Jews, as their alienation from the Jewish community was rather complete by this point, helped greatly by Paulâs mission to the Gentiles, and if they were not Jews, how did Christians account for the covenantal relationship between God and Abraham of which they were ostensibly no longer a part?
The answer came in the form of supersessionism. Sometimes called replacement theology or fulfilment theology, what this theology espouses is the notion that Christâs death on the cross is a new covenant which fulfills the conditions of the old covenant with the Jews. It means that Christians have replaced Jews as Godâs chosen people, and that the great failure of the Jews is to recognise this patent truth. Justin Martyr articulated it in the first century, talking about the Church as a âtrue spiritual Israel.â Augustine talked about the Jewish community of the 4th century as being remnants, punished by God for failing to recognise and accept the Messiah. It lies behind Lutherâs vicious assault on the Jews of the Holy Roman Empire, condemning them to suffering, punishment, and death for forfeiting Godâs second great promise. Israel, supersessionism argues, is a reminder to Christians what happens when you reject God â all the bad things that happen to the Jews, that Christians do to Jews, are justified by the Jewish rejection of Jesus, embodied in the charge of deicide.
This theology dominated most Christian thought in the West up until the Holocaust. It was present in every major Christian denomination, and was the backdrop for every conversion effort launched by Christians that was aimed at Jews. Protestants in particular have had a hard time putting it down â while Catholics have largely repudiated supersessionist theology and the charge of deicide with the changes wrought by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, Protestants have not had the same kind of unified leadership to do the same. (This is the problem of ecumenical theology in general â getting Baptists to all agree to something is like trying to nail jello to a tree, for example. Thereâs just no central authority to issue agreements and statements. Youâre limited to heads of seminaries or governing bodies, and even those statements arenât binding, thanks to their theology of the priesthood of all men and the individual ability to interpret Scripture.)Â
While most mainline denominations have renounced supersessionist theology, it is present in a great deal of conservative and independent Protestant churches, which can be lumped under the header of Evangelicals (as a category and a descriptor, not necessarily as they define themselves). It is the ideology that underscores Evangelical Protestant backing of Israel and the programmes designed to help Jews return to Israel â not that Jews have a claim to Israel, but that the only role Jews have in the hard supersessionist eschatology is to return to Israel to usher in the return of Christ to earth and the end of days. And I want to be clear, I donât perceive this adoption of supersessionism as individually hostile to Jews. It is, largely, a consequence of a number of things â the kinds of materials Evangelical churches adopt (often fundamentalist in tone, harkening back to perceived âglory daysâ of Christianity, almost always pre-modernity and rooted in the writings of the Reformation) invariably are polemical in tone, and are forever responding to spiritual crisis. The only proper response to spiritual crisis is the assertion of Jesus above all, and it allows for no nuance. There is one way â it is Jesus, and anyone who rejects Jesus is flawed. The Jews are a categorically flawed group because we have rejected Jesus, therefore, because we have not accepted Godâs ongoing revelation and the New Covenant of Christ, we have been discarded. Christians are the true Israel, according to this theology.
Iâve written on goynif about the Evangelical Protestant fixation on Jesusâ Jewish identity as a means of avoiding the presence of the Catholic Medieval world in their Christian identity. It ties directly into this supersessionist ideology â not only was Jesus a Jew, he was the ultimate Jew, and they can appropriate, warp, and adopt Jewish practices, be they first century or not, as they see fit as they are the true heirs to Jesusâ identities, both Christian and Jewish. This underscores almost all Evangelical Protestant interactions with Jewish ritual, liturgical, and cultural materials. And while some folks avoid it, it lurks in the background of their thinking, entirely common and articulated quietly every time someone says that Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Old Testament isnât binding anymore.
Sorry for the info dump, but itâs actually a fairly complex and long-standing idea that has permeated Christianityâs interactions with and relationship to Judaism and Jews throughout the whole of Church history. It should be telling that it was only rejected after the horrors of the Holocaust made the idea of attributing the sufferings of Jews to our corporate failure to accept Jesus appalling. That was the major sea change in Christian-Jewish relations. It took the extermination of a third of the worldâs Jewish population to make Christians reconsider their idea that no matter what happens to Jews, we deserve it. And that for many groups, the Holocaust is a warning we need to learn from instead of a wakeup call for the dangers of marginalising and denigrating oppressed groups. Supersessionism lurks too in the background of people who claim Jews should have learned from the Holocaust â it says that the things that happen to us are to teach us to be better people. And by better people, they mean more like Christians.
So I was tagged to talk about how supersessionism looks on the ground in Evangelical Churches. For those not in the know, I come from a Southern Baptist family, and grew up attending 7 or 8 Evangelical churches, some affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), some unaffiliated with any denomination and self-identified as âcommunityâ churches who donât identify themselves in any denominational community. I grew up on the grounds of a Baptist seminary where my father attended and worked, my grandfather was a Baptist missionary to the Spanish-speaking communities of Central CA â this is a tradition I know from personal experience as well as academic study.
This is the sort of meandering theological argument that gets trotted out in Evangelical communities that perfectly showcases supersessionism: In a reading on, say, Leviticus, the interpretive gloss is all about how Jesus lived in a cruel and unfair society, that punished people to death!! for what seem to us like minor infractions. The right and virtuous punishment for infractions against Godâs law is the total condemnation of the human soul to eternal separation from God. It was of course impossible to uphold and fulfill all those requirements, which is why people had to make blood sacrifices at the Temple. Animals literally took their place. But, because the grace of God is wonderful and mysterious, instead of condemning us to sacrifice offerings in a 1-for-1 exchange for our souls for the rest of time, Jesus made his body a blood sacrifice through crucifixion. Because he was the divine son of God, this offering extends to all of humanity on one basic condition that he carefully prearranged: that we follow the teachings of Jesus and his followers, instead of the laws of the Hebrew Bible. If we follow the teachings of Jesus instead, we are now automatically covered, for all time, against having to follow the rules of the Hebrew Bible. Jesusâ way frees you from oppressive rules and strictures, and only requires accepting the gifts of God and allowing your soul to be transformed by radical encounters with the grace of God.
This is pretty fundamentally the underlying structure of Evangelical Christianity: Godâs justice is bloodthirsty and impossible to fulfill, Jesusâ death on the cross is a 1-for-1 substitution of his death for your soul. Thatâs a pretty huge problem underlying Jewish-Evangelical relations, and the Evangelical idea of Judaism. To Evangelical Christians, who genuinely believe in the âbloodthirstyâ nature of the âOld Testamentâ God (because their theology does pretty much require it, or their interpretation of Jesusâ death on the cross as salvific makes literally no sense), Jews are refusing to get with a program that is patently obvious: God would move on from being hellfire and brimstone, but there are people who wonât take his plea bargain. The idea that Jews themselves do not interpret the God of the Hebrew Bible as a bloodthirsty killer demanding sacrifices in exchange for not punitively smiting them is a huge blow to their theology: so, for the most part, they ignore it. One of the reasons it is almost impossible to argue theology with an Evangelical Christian, especially about the Hebrew Bible, is because so much of their theology hinges on the idea that the establishment of the impossibility of the law is required to explain the necessity of Jesus.
At the same time, some Evangelical Christians really want to use Jewish stuff, because according to this worldview, as Ann Coulter articulated, theyâre âbetterâ Jews. âPerfectedâ Jews. According to Evangelical Christianity, Jesus was always the plan. God just dicked around for a couple thousand years âŚbecause⌠but Jesus was intended from the get-go. Once Adam & Eve cocked it up in the Garden, God conspired throughout all of history to lead to the historical moment of Jesus and the ahistorical redemption of the whole world. This is why Evangelical Christians read the Hebrew Bible with a pseudo-mystical gloss despite taking it literally, finding references to Jesus in all kinds of things, despite the obvious problem that nothing about historical Jesus is described by the passage. Because Jews are good when they are pre-Jesus monotheists waiting for the Messiah. Pre-Jesus Jews are just waiting to be Christian, according to this interpretation. Which is the other reason Evangelical Christians arenât interested in the historical critical method of interpretation, or Jewish interpretations of the passages Evangelical Christians think are mystical references to the coming of Christ. The idea Evangelical Christians have of Judaism is very static: Jews are still hanging out waiting for the Messiah with beliefs virtually unchanged since the days of Jesus. This is part of why they feel entitled to take whatever they want, turn it into a conversation about Jesus, and tell Jews they have a right to it, too.
Sometimes, when interacting with a socially liberal Evangelical Christian (yes, they do exist, I am related to some), you can tell them their ideas about Judaism are wrong and flawed. You can talk about the historical critical method. You can discuss what Jewish glosses of the Hebrew Bible say about the passages they have taken to be about Jesus. You can tell them that taking from modern Jewish practice is wrong, and not what Jesus would have done. And because many of these people are kind and compassionate, they will listen, and think about what you are saying, and amend some of their behavior, if not their thinking, because hurting people is against their theology.
But if youâre dealing with a conservative Evangelical Christian who believes in the literal one-for-one soul exchange type of theology? Save your breath. It is not worth your time or effort. These people cannot be reasoned with. You cannot talk to them. They do not care if they are hurting you. Walk away.
Thank you so much for your responses!
I have a question though. You touched on that Evangelical Christians want to use Jewish practices (both modern and ancient) because they see themselves as âperfectedâ Jews. I understand what youâre saying about conservative Evangelical Christians who cannot be reasoned with, but Iâm curious to know what you think their response would be if challenged with the fact that there are some Jewish holidays that came about after Jesus would have been alive. (E.g. Passover as we celebrate it today.)
Iâm gathering from what you wrote that they would just feel entitled to ANY Jewish practice (whether it was in place while Jesus was around or years after), but that doesnât quite make sense to me. Because wouldnât they just see any Jewish practices that came about after Jesusâs sacrifice as being fundamentally backwards and in direct conflict with following the new covenant created when Jesus was crucified?
And as a follow up, if the whole point of Jesusâs death was to be a substitution so that following the laws of the Hebrew Bible was unnecessary, wouldnât continuing to follow them be in direct conflict to the condition of the ânew covenantâ made through Jesusâs sacrifice? Or did I miss something?
You would think, using logic, that Evangelical Christians would have a cooties reaction to modern Jewish practices not attested at the time of Jesus, and while some do, many donât. Many look at the myriad of beautiful ritual practices of modern Judaism, and⌠well, I think they feel jealous. Ritual practice isnât really emphasized in Evangelical Christianity â itâs viewed with suspicion most of the time, but human beings like, crave, and desire rituals. What happens next is I think best typified in a refrain I recall seeing often is summed up more or less like this: âthat thing is so good/inspiring/beautiful, it should be Christian. Letâs take it, and make it Christian.â
This is how you get the Evangelical commerical market; Christian Bible verse wall decals, to imitate secular decorating trends, Christian inspirational/motivational conferences to talk about Jesus instead of self-empowerment, Christian pop/rock/rap/new age with songs about Jesus instead of relationships, Christian fantasy novels, Christian romance novels, Christian movies, Christian t-shirt lines mimicking secular designs but with Jesus added. The process literally goes âI like that thing. Letâs make it Christian.â
Christians sometimes call this âredeemingâ an act of culture â theyâre âelevatingâ it to itâs ârightfulâ status as part of Christian culture, because in their worldview, everything is intended to be Christian, anyway. If this is the attitude someone is taking towards appropriating a Jewish ritual, it doesnât matter that the ritual has a context in Judaism â they âfixedâ it, by making it Christian. It was âincompleteâ without the addition of Jesus, and now itâs a good thing.
You also get some Evangelical Christians who fetishize Judaism simply because they perceive it as an additional difficulty setting, being frozen in time, and they donât want you to tell them any differently. Evangelical Christians are very obsessed with doing things that separate them out from society as proof of their moral virtue. Keeping kosher, for example, strikes Christians as very hard, and so they want to do it because it means thereâs just one more thing that separates them from non-Christians. These people literally cannot conceive of the idea that Jewish rituals post-date Jesus; Judaism surely has simply stopped there, right? Evangelical Christians believe Christianity is the fulfillment of Jewish beliefs about the Messiah, so if Jews havenât accepted Jesus, they havenât moved forward in time at all. Arguing to the contrary with these people rarely goes anywhere.
Finally, the other thing you see is people justifying Christian appropriation of Jewish rituals by talking about how âmeaningfulâ it is to them to make something part of their Christian practice. If someone trots out that they feel spiritually compelled or justified to do something, just walk away, this person is completely deaf to anything you might tell them. Evangelical Christians believe that God speaks to them directly, and the messages they receive about their faith from God are inerrant and cannot be wrong because God would not lie to them. This argument is literally âGod says itâs okay for me to do that, you just donât understand if you disagree.â This argument is considered the ultimate trump card in Evangelical circles. I have seen people argue literally anything, including some stuff that is definitely against the theology and ethics of Evangelical Christianity (like theft! I saw someone defend stealing money from a congregation with the argument âGod wanted me to have that moneyâ.)
I know itâs tempting to try and hold Evangelical Christians to their own internal logic, but frankly, most simply do not behave in a way consistent with their own beliefs. Youâre correct in feeling like Evangelical Christians should have no reason to want to steal from modern Jews â but they do anyway, and they find logic and loopholes to explain why itâs not only okay, but morally right.
This is all really excellent commentary and important reading. It should put Christian (especially Evangelical Protestant) appropriation of Jewish rituals, liturgy, and culture into context, both theologically and culturally.
