all likelihood the only one never to be faulted by the ACLU orrnPeople for the American Way on the ground of church/staternseparation is the notion that American Christians have a religiousrnobligation to insist on unqualified American support forrnthe state of Israel. This is not to suggest that the United Statesrncould not justify a cooperative relationship with Israel purely onrnprudent foreign policy grounds, given the latter’s antipathy towardrnIslamic radicalism. However, we should terminate Israel’srnperemptory claim to over four billion dollars in variousrnforms of American assistance every year, the benefit of whichrneven many Israelis are now questioning; the Cranston Amendment,rnfor example, which requires that American annual aid tornIsrael be no less than Israel’s annual interest payment on pastrnloans, should be repealed. Likewise, it is natural and —if it werernkept within certain limits—tolerable that American Jews wouldrnhave an inclination to interpret Israel’s interests as harmoniousrnwith America’s, even as Americans of other ethno-religiousrnstock maintain their emotional bond with their countries ofrnorigin.rnBut there is no justification for the conviction of so manyrnAmerican Christians, mostly evangelicals but including membersrnof other denominations, that American support for a non-rnChristian foreign state is an absolute divine mandate. This superstitionrnderives almost entirely from a novel —indeed,rnheretical — method of biblical exegesis called Dispensationalism,rnwhich holds, among other things, that the covenant givenrnto Israel in the Old Testament continues to run concurrentlyrnwith the New Covenant; in its extreme form, its adherents go sornfar as to suggest that there are in effect tvvo paths of salvation,rnone for Jews and the other for Gentiles, a clear perversion ofrnScripture (especially Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, chaptersrn9 through 11) and of any Christian teaching to be foundrnfrom the first century to the 19th. Some Dispensationalistsrneven expect in the not-too-distant future to hail the returnedrnChrist in the guise of an earthly king and messiah ruling from arnrebuilt Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem—and have providedrnmoral and material support to a radical Israeli group called thernTemple Mount Faithful, which has repeatedly provoked violentrntensions in its campaign to rebuild the Temple destroyedrnby Titus in A.D. 70. For any serious Christian, especially one familiarrnwith the writings of the Church Fathers, less importantrnthan the political consequences of a rebuilt temple (the site isrnnow occupied by the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsarnmosque) or the Jewish religious significance of rebuilding thernTemple (the last serious attempt to do so was under Julian thernApostate in the fourth century) is that there could be absolutelyrnno doubt as to who will be the “Christ” ruling the earth fromrnthat Temple: “that man of sin . . . , the son of perdition, who opposethrnand exalteth himself above all that is called God, or thatrnis worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,rnshewing himself that he is God,” as Saint Paul warned.rnOf course, speculation as to how specific political events relaternto the unfolding of the “mystery of iniquity” have no morernproper place in setting policy than do those of Dispensationalismrnand should not bias American policy for or against either Israelrnor any other country. But as a purely religious question, therneffect of Dispensationalism on American perceptions of worldrnevents deserves urgent and immediate examination by allrnAmerican Christians.rnUnfortunately, that examination is about as likely as thernUnited States having a Christian foreign, or domestic, policyrnany time soon—or ever again. God gave the Christian worldrn15, maybe 16, good centuries after Constantine. We cannot expectrnHim to be so generous again.