Zionism has again come to the forefront of our public dialogue with the recent decision of the President to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, including plans to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv—where all nations with diplomatic ties to Israel have their embassies—to Jerusalem. As of this writing, only one other nation, Guatemala, has decided to follow the US on this policy.

The politics of this decision are steeped in Zionism. Particularly in the US this takes the form of Christian Zionism, which is prevalent in some circles of American Protestantism as part of a larger eschatological framework called Dispensationalism. I will analyze the history and theology of this problematic teaching first, and then contrast it with the ancient teachings of Orthodoxy on Israel and the end times.

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)

The doctrine of Dispensationalism was invented in 19th-century England by an Anglican priest turned Brethren minister named John Nelson Darby. Darby was the first to create a systematic paradigm of Dispensationalism, which teaches that God acts in different ways at different times to administer His overall plan for the world. While this is built on earlier concepts that date all the way back to St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the 2nd century, Darby goes much further in systematizing this concept.

A key concept, unique to Darby, is that the prophecies of the Old Testament that speak of an eternal Israel, such as those found in Isaiah 60, require the physical re-establishment of the nation of Israel on earth, that this is separate from the establishment of the Church, and that this must happen before the “end times.” This idea was strongly advocated by Darby, who travelled much of continental Europe and North America to spread this idea. It has caught on in a number of Protestant circles, and is as good as Gospel for them: Israel must be re-established and fully recognized before Christ can return. Read More

This is the second article in our Christian Unity Series.

Christian unity is foremost unity established through Christ. More specifically it is participation in the unity of the Trinity: “That they also may be one in Us.” Christ gives this to those believing in Him: “And the glory which You have given to Me, I have given to them, so that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; so that they may be perfected in unity.” So Christian unity is something received from Christ in union with the Trinity. 

When we speak of union with the Trinity, this is effected through union with Christ and becoming members of the household of God, the Church, and forming one Body. They are built onto the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. So the unity of the those united to Christ is seen in the formation of one Body or one Church, which is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Christian unity, then, is the the gathering of the faithful in one Body or Church. 

The Church is manifest in each location as those gathered around the one bishop and presbyters in that location because, in gathering with the bishop and presbyters, one gathers with Christ and the Apostles as tangibly manifest in that location through the bishop and presbyters. So Christian unity is gathering with the bishop and presbyters of the Church in their particular location. Because there is only one Christ and one Church, there is only one such gathering in each place, and this gathering must then be of the whole catholic Church in that place, because there are no parts of the Church apart from this gathering. Read More

This is the first article in our Christian Unity Series.

Every year, in the third week of January (in the northern hemisphere), many Christian individuals, parishes, and associations organize ecumenical liturgies, Bible studies, and other activities to animate a Week of Prayer for Christian Unity (WPCU). The WPCU calls Christians to repentance for sinful events and attitudes that led (and lead) to divisions in the church, and promotes the way of ecumenism, which aims to restore unity within the global Christian family.

The Week is typically organized around a scriptural theme and focuses on the Christian context of a particular country or region of the world. Resources for the Week are prepared by a local writing team from the featured country, and are jointly published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Commission on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches. Those using the resources are invited to adapt the materials to their own context while attending to the Christian reality as it is lived out in that specific part of the world.

In my ministry as an Ecumenical Officer, the WPCU is obviously a highlight of the pastoral programming year. In our Archdiocese, for instance, we encourage all of our parishes and institutions to reach out to their Christian neighbours during the Week and join in some way in Jesus’ own prayer for His disciples—that other “Lord’s prayer”—“that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). Read More

I’d like to take on the issue of what Jesus wrote in the dust. It is, indeed, a riddle: presented as a puzzle, which can be solved from the evidence and information presented around it, and which asks for such a solution. I make no claim to scholarship in the formal sense, but the genre of riddle does not ask for it, being a matter of reading, even reading for the plot, and working with the material itself.

Next, there is a unique answer, such that the story is better revealed, the scene better integrated into the overall narrative, and the actions of the characters consistent with the words; furthermore, that answer has to illumine an aspect of Jesus’ own temper and personality. Finally, it has to be generally available to both the actors in the scene and the readers of the story—in other words, Scripture.   

The common interpretation bases its answer on a moral claim:  Jesus wrote down the sins of the bystanders. The best argument for this is the instruction that the one without sins should cast the first stone, but problems arise. It has no general weight. It shows Jesus as a personal accuser, which would be a rare instance, and one in which He does not offer remedy. It would show Him as a mind-reader, although sins are common enough that any list of sins might do and anyone would find a shoe to fit.

It’s rather flat, lacking any poetry or resonance. Read More