Judging from the list above, the “fundamentalist” label would cover a majority of Christians today and since the label usage has shifted to a more derogatory term – to describe the extremist, closed-minded, rigid, zealous, and the intolerant (as the audience described fundamentalists) – the oft-alluded-to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are the poster boys of American Christian Fundamentalism today. Thus, the attack on post-modern Christianity becomes clear: should one profess the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin Birth of Christ and His sacrificial death for mankind’s sin, that person’s views and opinions can immediately be dismissed as coming from a “fundamentalist” if not outright dangerous individual, providing an easy way out of having to show any reasonable support or backing for the pro-homosexual and pro-abortion positions in the Church for example.

Furthermore, according to Dr. Martin, another important characteristic of fundamentalism is its reactive nature. Just as in 1895 when Christian theologians reacted to liberal tendencies by creating a five-point “litmus test” for a true Christian, the same goes for Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, according to Dr. Martin. Being careful to not once label the two groups as “terrorist organizations”, Dr.Martin was careful to mention that both groups were in existence as a result of the reactive nature of mankind, i.e. Hezbollah started as a result of Israel invading Lebanon, and it was involved in “building schools, hospitals and clinics”, while Hamas was in fact “supported by Israel” and was not a bunch of “mindless suicide bombers” but rather a bunch of disciplined fighters, very careful not to bomb civilians. Only as a result of attacks from Jewish fundamentalists did Hamas decide to attack all Jews, including civilians. In all fairness, Dr. Martin issued a disclaimer, stating she does not endorse such attacks.

Finally, Dr. Martin concluded the main problem in the Middle East is in fact not political or religious, but Land-related. Quoting Norman C. Habel’s book The Land Is Mine! Six Biblical Ideologies (Fortress Press, 1995), she suggested that the ideology of Land in the Bible, especially the Old Testament “refers to a complex of images and ideas that may employ theological doctrines, traditions, or symbols to justify and promote the social, economic, and political interests of a group within society.” This position seems to negate, and completely ignore the covenantal nature of the Bible – perhaps Dr. Martin and the audience are not familiar with Covenant Theology and Covenant Eschatology in general, which would address the land problem adequately and put it in its proper historical context.

Rather than cover the six views presented by Habel’s book, Martin covered only three of the views:

1. Theocratic ideology, where Canaan is seen as a land grant, an unearthed gift from God who remains its owner. Keeping the land is directly dependant on Israel’s obedience:

“And now, O Israel, Give heed to the statutes and the ordinances that I am teaching you to observe, so that you may live and take possession of the land that the Lord, the God of your ancestors is giving you.” Deut. 4:1

2. Ancestral household ideology. Here the land is thought of as being given by God to Israel as entitlements. Per Exodus 23:28-30 and Deuteronomy 7:1-6, Habel sees Jehovah as a “warrior god” who authorizes Israel to take the land away by force and destroy the inhabitants.

3. Immigrant ideology. By quoting Genesis 23:2-9 and Genesis 14:18-19, Habel sees the Hebrews as immigrants in the host country of Canaan. Here they “establish peaceful relations with their hosts” while “Canaanites and their culture are remembered positively as a source of wisdom and decency.”

Overall, the lecture was decently presented, however it lacked any convincing power whatsoever. When describing the Israeli killing of the Hamas founder, Dr.Martin made sure to let the audience know that “not one, but two rockets were fired at the paralyzed man from an American-made Apache helicopter.” Such comments, and others, undermine any credibility or noble goal the lecture intended to have. I agree with the fact that unilateral support of Israel by the United States does not encourage a peace process in the Middle East; however, the major problem in the Middle East is not really a matter of real estate, but a matter of eschatology. This is where Preterism really throws a huge wrench in Martin’s plans.

When three groups of people belonging to three separate religions see an apocalyptic future event taking place in Jerusalem, no political, social or military attempt will be able to resolve this huge need of maintaining control of the city. However, should Jews, Palestinians and Christians all understand the first-century relevance of Apocalyptic events, and the fact that the Messiah will never physically return to the city of Jerusalem, serious conversations pursuing peace can begin. As a result, the Zionists in the United States can stop taking advantage of Jews in trying to hasten the return of Christ, which in turn would put a stop to the billions of dollars being swallowed by Israel every year. Palestinians terrorists would have no reason to kill innocent Israelis because Israeli soldiers would have to answer to someone for their own indiscriminate attacks on Palestinians. And so, the circle of peace would close and Preterism would be a beautiful, final solution to the Middle East problem.

Ultimately the lecture was a disappointment, but also an encouragement, making me realize how powerful and impregnable Covenant Eschatology is. A simple glimpse of someone holding a Bible would have been enough to redeem both the speaker and the audience. Unfortunately, the only Bible I saw was the decorative Bible opened at the front of the church auditorium.