I don’t see anything controversial in the interpretation of the Canaanite genocide, about which a great deal of mitigating material already exists. I think it is controversial to suggest that the establishment of Israel in the land was in itself the beginning of the new creation. God was at work in individuals and the nation - yes. But the new creation it was not. It may have foreshadowed a new creation; this seems increasingly to have become the conviction of the prophets. The full orbed reality of the new creation came with the microcosm of Christ, not a nation or people. Insofar as people identified themselves with Christ, they share in that new creation which is inherently him, and his, not theirs.

I think what is really controversial in Andrew’s post is something which seems to be implied, and which he may not have intended. If not, it needs to be clarified. This is the idea that somehow, a genocide in Rwanda provided a platform for a new creation, which is validated by biblical precedents. The implication is that God was clearing the ground for His new creation in Rwanda. If this is not what Andrew was saying, I wonder what interpretation he intends us to draw from the Canaanite genocide?

The events of 1994 may prompt an evaluation of what is called post-colonial Christianity and its shortcomings, and provide a better basis for a more social expression of Christian faith. But I am concerned about the lack of clarity in Andrew’s invocation of Israel’s ‘holy war’, and indeed the wisdom of invoking it in the context of internecine slaughter between people of a broadly shared profession of Christian faith.