This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Some somewhat unstructured thoughts:
While "Cruz doesn't know anything about Iran" seems to have been the big takeaway that people focus on from this interview, I think the much more important and more alarming part is, as you pointed out, the religious element - but I don't think it's a case of stupidity, at least on that specific issue, or of ignorance. "What is with him" is that he genuinely believes that his God, through scripture, has commanded him to support Israel, and there are many in the upper echelons of the US government who genuinely and wholeheartedly believe the same thing.
"Republicans want to go to war in the Middle East because they're Millennialist Christians" is one of those horseshoe / bell-curve-meme situations where if you know nothing about the state of the American right, you probably believe it, if you are sort of read up on the American right, you probably think it's nonsense, and if you really listen to everything they say and the actions they take and try and discern their motivations, then yeah, it turns out they really just do believe it. Yes, sometimes they'll give other justifications based on liberal principles or American statecraft or plain might makes right rhetoric, and sometimes those justifications make sense, but they are all made in the shadow of the initial basis of theology. They are add-ons, NOT the central thing itself. In that way, it's telling that Cruz gives two reasons for his unconditional support of Israel, and the first one he describes is theological.
I really wish Tucker had asked the natural follow up, which is, "If your God has commanded you to support Israel, then surely you would do it even if it was actively against American interests?", but he instead chooses to focus on the difference between what Israel meant in the Bible and whether it can be understood to refer to the modern-day polity of Israel (the answer is very obviously no, because the polity did not exist in any meaningful form, but Cruz refuses to engage properly on that point).
HOWEVER, with all that said, I would be curious as to whether Tucker himself disagrees with the idea that Christians have some obligation to support some form of Israel, whether that is just "the chosen people" (i.e. Jews). I've heard some Christians explain this away by saying that "nah, doesn't matter because Jesus, new covenant, we're all God's chosen, etc. etc." but I don't think that holds out when you read through the Bible. I, personally, follow in the strong and storied European tradition of pick-whatever-works faith, so would be interested in what the more theologically-minded Christians of the motte believe.
The promises to Abraham which Cruz references are interpreted in the New Testament as applying to Christians as follows:
I think the easiest argument against any kind of dual covenant is that the first recorded preaching by Peter is to Jews in Israel, in Acts 2. They are told to repent, be baptized and believe in order to be saved.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't want to go off the deep end speculating on his stated faith, but at first glance, this part felt somewhat post-hoc to me. I don't doubt that his support for Israel is tied to his faith to some degree, but I also doubt that that particular verse is the driver rather than the justification.
It is suspicious to me that he had the verse memorized (and corrected Tucker on the exact wording at one point, to narrow his interpretation even though his quote was not quite right anyway.), and had the 'I learned in Sunday school' framining, but didn't know where in the Bible it was, or provide any additional context outside of the single quoted verse.
It just came off to me like a digestible soundbite to rattle off, rather than the starting point for a developed point of view. I think Tucker sufficiently surfaced this in his pushback, but it didn't come out explicitly.
More options
Context Copy link
Mu. Cruz' position is that God blesses those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. It's less of a commandment and more of an explicit statement handed down From On High that helping Israel is in America's interests.
I don't agree with his interpretation of those verses, but it's worth clarifying this.
More options
Context Copy link
I think bribery is a much more accurate and succinct explanation, actually. I don't actually believe that Cruz would hold this opinion without substantial donations riding on it.
There are certainly parts of the American right for which this is a legit religious conviction, I don't think they're of much consequence today anymore versus MIC interests.
More options
Context Copy link
These politicians hardly act as devout christians who believe every word of the bible. They are paid by AIPAC and are terrified of Mossad and jewish influence in the media.
They act as most devout Christians act, in my experience: when it's something that doesn't impact them directly on a personal level (e.g. nuking Iran), they're all for it, when it's something that inconveniences them personally (e.g. not having sex with underage male prostitutes), they had a moment of weakness and will return to the Lord.
That doesn't mean they don't believe it, it just makes them human.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why doesn't it hold, in your opinion?
The Bible makes it pretty clear that there is something special about the relationship between the Jews and God, that this is passed down in a tribal fashion, and that this was not, at least in its entirety, entirely erased by the crucifixion and resurrection (e.g. Romans 11). I would personally read it as "the tribe of Israel is very special, but now everyone is able to become part of that tribe in a new, special way that didn't exist before, and this is partially because of how the tribe of Israel really dropped the ball".
Christian understanding does not end at the Bible. Indeed the Bible says not to use itself that way (2 Thessalonians 2:15). This would seem to be quite a problem for Protestantism but that's beside the point.
The point here is that for a couple thousand years Christians have understood God's relationship with Israel to have been transferred, in a sense, to the Church. Early Christians understood themselves to be part of the fulfilment of the Jewish religion; that Judaism has become Christianity and gentiles have a place in it. They didn't understand 'Judaism' to be a separate thing from Christianity.
However, especially with the destruction of the second temple, the Jews who rejected Christ underwent a radical shift in their beliefs and practices, leading to what we today call "Rabbinical Judaism" -- not the same religion that (partly) transformed into Christianity and, indeed, a younger religion than Christianity, which fairly heavily and consciously defined itself against Christianity.
Within this rubric, what we today call 'Judaism' is rather a Christian heresy and no, there's no expectation that its adherents have any special role that Christians need to worry about. The Church is the 'True Israel'.
For non-Protestant Christians, having so many Protestants in political power is bemusing, frustrating, and sometimes terrifying. This case is all three.
If you have another reliable record of apostolic teaching, you should listen to it. But you don't – both Rome and Constantinople have a history of backdating later innovations to ascribe apostolicity to them. Tradition can be useful, but to call it authoritative is an error.
Fortunately that's not needed here, because the Bible speaks to the issue. If Cruz gets it wrong, well, Cruz gets it wrong.
I'd like to respond with some clever remark about Roman Catholics in power, but that'd be silly because, like Protestants, they are too varied a group to generalize about that way. As far as I'm aware of Eastern Orthodox politicians in traditionally Orthodox countries, they seem more driven by ethnic nationalism than by any particularly Christian concerns.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I understand the covenant as God having had a relationship with the righteous Hebrew nation. He did not have a covenant with those outside the righteous nation. Not with gentiles, obviously. But also not with Hebrews (= pre 70 AD descendants of Abraham) who abandoned the Law and adopt gentile worship and customs. If having the tiniest shred of Abraham's DNA made you one of the Chosen, there should be more consternation in the Bible about the Babylonian captivity or the children of kidnapped Hebrew women, but those people are just treated as gentiles AFAIK.
I think God probably gave the Hebrews living after 33AD a grace period, but the He really underlined His point in 70AD, after which AIUI it was no longer possible to continue the traditional Hebrew religion as commanded by God. So, after a brief period, the Hebrew diaspora (=Jews) created a new tradition partially rooted in the pre-70AD religion. I don't think God recognizes this new tradition as legitimate, and the NT says that the Christian church is the new Israel. There's the question of the 144,000 in Revelation, but I don't really know what to make of that, maybe some special mercy for descendants of Abraham of good conscience. Or some people say it means Christians. I don't know.
Edit: IIRC God promised the Hebrews: land, descendants, a relationship (one god/one people), and a messiah through the line of David. The land is now the whole Earth (evangelization), the Hebrews have myriad spiritual descendants, the God/people relationship remains intact, and the Messiah is Christ.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link