Ann Coulter's Supersessionism

Ann Coulter likes to be provocative. No comment is too outrageous for her, and her legions of fans love her antics. Her comments made this past week on “The Big Idea” with Donny Deutsch, however, have caused a bigger stir than usual. As reported in Tim Rutten’s media column for the LA Times, it appears that Deutsch invited Coulter on to talk about how she had branded herself – Deutsch’s show is business oriented. In the course of the conversation Deutsch asked her what her ideal country would look like. Coulter answered that it would be a country where all were Christians. When Deutsch asked about the place of the Jews in such a country, she explained that they should be “perfected” by converting to Christianity.

Coulter’s remarks have drawn the ire, as one would expect, of the leading Jewish organizations, which condemned her anti-Semitic sentiments. What she had expressed was what theologians call supersessionism – the idea that Christianity supersedes or replaces Judaism, because it is an inferior religion that needs to be completed/perfected through conversion to Christianity. While the Roman Catholic Church and many Mainline Protestant churches have renounced supersessionism, it is still a strongly held view within evangelical Christianity. Supersessionism has deep scriptural roots – for the earliest Christians were Jews who had accepted Jesus as Messiah (Christ). It has been assumed, indeed I held this position, that since the gospel had gone to the Jews then it should go to them now. It only makes sense. Or does it?

The problem with supersessionism is two millennia of history, during which Christians have systematically repressed Judaism. The Holocaust was simply the most outrageous example of longstanding expressions of anti-Semitism.

I expect that Ann Coulter and many of her supporters aren’t sure what the problem is. Many Christian Zionists, including John Haggee are of one mind on this. For a Jew to be saved – to enter the kingdom of God – he or she must accept Jesus as Messiah and savior. This is standard Christian teaching that has only been recently challenged as a result of Christian Reflection on the Shoah or Holocaust. Although Paul’s statements are a bit convoluted in Romans 9-11 as to God’s relationship with Israel (not the modern nation, but the Jewish people), he concludes by saying that the election/choosing of Israel (the Jewish people) will not end or be superseded, because “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).

What we in the Christian community must do is first say no to the Ann Coulters as they repeat supersessionist ideas. We must also raise awareness about the nature and consequences of supersessionism. It is the job of the church to insist that superessionism is no longer acceptable and that that it is inherently anti-Jewish, even if not necessarily anti-Semitic in an ethnic/racial sense. Even as we loathe Coulter’s comments, may they serve for us as an important teaching moment on this issue!

Comments

Anonymous said…
Supercessionism is a problem, but I have to challenge the idea that many Jewish and some Christian scholars put forward that the 2000 years INVALIDATES any Jews concluding that Jesus was the Messiah. I don't believe the NT teaches supercessionism, and I understand why such a tiny faith, already struggling with losses due to assimilation, would find all conversions illegitimate.

But, although I frown on conversionist efforts to Jews (already God's covenant people), I cannot find any reason why some Jews today could not conclude that Jesus was the messiah.

I lean toward universalism even though I hesitate to fully embrace it. But I am also committed to evangelism through dialogue--and dialogue always involves the possibility that one side will convert. It can happen either direction.

There are other problems with Coulter's comments--she expressed the desire that every American be a Christian (though her own faith is in doubt)--turning all non-Christians into non-citizens. THAT'S scary.
Mike L. said…
I think there are seeds of this anti-semetic thought in the New Testament. I don't think it was anything that Jesus intended or even Paul, but I think it was an undercurrent in atleast some early Christian writings (that does NOT validate it!).

For example... Compare Paul's own account of his last minute escape from King Aretas in (2 Cor 11,32-33). Now compare that to the account of later Christian's in the book of Acts 9:20-25. What happened to this story Luke expands it to fit the later meaning of a more distinct and separate Christian faith? The villian is not the king anymore but the Jews.

There is something to that and we shouldn't just accept it just because it is part of our sacred texts. We should point out that this was part of Paul's thinking and not part of Jesus' thinking.
Mr. Mcgranor said…
You can call us what you want; and some would clarify that the term --anti-Judaic-- is more plausible.
Although you would correctly be traditionally be defined as Judaizers.
The fact what is the left of the Mainline fails to see, that we were then; and will be Israel.

Popular Posts