Yes, and as to what you allude to above, people tend to like to "label". This has a number of purposes, but one [unfortunate] one is it expedites discussion toward familiar [and tired!] territory. Obviously this can server a positive puprose--if a 5 point and 4 point Calvinist are dialogueing it can allow up front parameters to focus discussion--but to often labels allow sides to errect straw men that often talk past issues and people instead of with.
The focus on charitable discussion is important, even with those you know you will disagree. Giving each person a fair hearing, as well as recognizing why dialogue is strained, is important. e.g. For us a dialogue on the Sabbath would likely need to address our different positions on the Bible&Tradition, the traditions of the Church, the role of the Hebrew Bible, and the nature of the New Covenant. And while a label may help me identify what direction you are coming from, I still need to give you a fair hearing on your own terms (unless of course you state something like, "I am a 5 point Calvinist and agree with Michael Horton's presentation").
I do think this is important. Most of my wife's extended family is Roman Catholic, but I cannot assume they take a Catholic position as almost all of them diverge at some point or another (or almost always!)
I may not agree with you, but I can at least give you a fair hearing and interact with your specific points and dialogue about our specific differences instead of the pre-canned lobbying of points of conflict back and forth. In the medical field we attempt to treat the cause (not just symptoms); theologically we tend to do the reverse in focusing on symptoms (e.g. the Sabbath debate) instead of the cause (e.g. approach to scripture and history/tradition). Now the former plays a very important role as anomalies indicate either a lack in understand our system or a failure in our system of understanding, but in our current context of the Sabbath it would do me little good to "proof text" the Sabbath to a dispensational Christian who could agree outright in almost every case with little comment but would still not view it as relevant because they view themselves as part of a parenthesis (the Church Age) where the rules are different. We would make no headway, outside of posing a couple potential anomalies, debating the Sabbath without first addressing the broader issue.
So labels are helpful--as long as we are using them to further profitable discussion as well as knowing when we are at a dead end.
Of course, as above, we don't always ascribe the same meaning to words, so it is very important to set our parameters early.
First of all, welcome to this forum. There's more versions of what constitues "Messianic" here than there are versions of "My Sharona" by cover bands.
Thanks for the welcome mat
Yes, this is true of the general movement. Statistically a majority is evangelical. I was actually quite surprised to hear that a vast segment is charismatic even.
I am not sure we can get a consensus of self-labeled Messianics as the core tennants of MJudaism.
I think it's applied differently by different Gentiles groups. I'm sure you'd agree that the belief in the holiness and continuity of the Sabbath is translated into different practices and doctrines across the Gentile world.
Yes, which makes it a difficult issue to discuss without having a proper context or view you are addressing.
OK...let me clarify. You are correct in saying that Judaism has a long history of being liturgical and having daily
public religious liturgies and prayers. The Apostolic churches do the same. OTOH, the modern day Protestants only open their churches on Sundays, for a few hours, and then close up for the rest of the week for golf and the pursuit of happiness. Occasionally they open for other reasons mid week, but not much. I like the Judeo-Apostolic Christian version of religious life more, personally speaking.
This is why I said if the modern day Protestants ever catch up to the rest of us, I'll be impressed!
I cannot speak of non-Americans, but I think I am safe to say this is a problem with American faith in general (including the Orthodox variants). I live in an area of ~70% Catholics and the remainder being Protestants. The majority of Catholics are "Easter Catholics" and a very small minority, mainly the older generation, being "daily Catholics".
I would agree that a typical Protestant Church goes underutilized, especially when you consider the amount of wealth dumped into a shell of a building. A shift in attitude toward study, praise, and table fellowship as communities--be it in a centralized building or within our homes--is an important issue we need to address. There are certainly notes Protestants could be taking in regards to the lessons learned by Judaism&Apostolics in this regards.
But it is a troubling issue for all, as statistics indicate (at least in America). As your "Amen" indicates we need to address the issue of lifestyle: holy living devoted to worshipping our God daily, moment by moment, not just on a single day or couple hours every day.
Anglicanism doesn't define this topic
Would they default to any of the specific creeds as binding on their interpretation/practice?
but almost every cleric I know (and I'm one of them) believes that Sabbath keeping is still binding on Israel, but not on Gentiles, who are morally obligated to keep all days holy to God and should dedicate at a bare minimum one full day of rest in holiness unto God. The Sabbath, we would say, is a sign for the world eternally, but Sabbath keeping was given as a sign for Israel alone to remind the world of God's creation as a witness to it. The moral implications of Sabbath keeping are binding on Gentiles too but they must witness to that differently, and have liberty in doing so.
Thank you for depositing your position. I can see that it is thought out and I wish I had the time to engage it fully as it appears nuanced. Abviously the issue of the Church/Israel is quite large as is principlism/literalism. Good topics to discuss over tea.
Maybe a quicker topic: May I ask why Gentiles, "
must witness to that differently"?
That's the general gist of what most (or many) Anglicans would say. The problem Anglicans have is that we have no distinctive doctrines and sometimes people expect us to have them in order to work us out and pigeonhole us!
The other day you made a comment about Messianics being an example of the need of tradition; I would deposit that in the above circumstance we aren't so different
I know the congregations I have been a member of it has been high on teaching/dialogue and low on formulating distinctive doctrine. I think Biblicaly there is a strong case ministry and fellowship based on the reading and discussion of scripture, and the subsequent living thereof, above binding people to cemented positions and dividing over them. Of course there are core issues that can divide (an Antiochian approach to Biblical exegesis won't tolerate Alexandrian approach long, nor could a Samaritan and Pharisee agree long based on their different scriptures and core traditions) but I think many of us would agree that continued dialogue and growth is vital to a Spirit lead community.
On a personal level, I've been a Sabbath keeper my whole life and I've never stopped (even though I was told I should cease Jewish practices by pentecostals once when I was a newbie Christian- but a Catholic priest set me straight on that and I continued in my personal customs with a clear conscience).
Interesting how Christians from all walks view such, on the surface, simple topic. Some would say you are sinning for keeping the Sabbath--others sinning by not observing such.
My approach, in brief, is
surprisingly Reformed (in
some ways) in the sense that I see a distinction between Justification and Sanctification. The Torah is not a vehicle of justification or salvation as that wasn't the purpose of the Torah. I view much of Paul's lamenting directed at the generalized doctrine of merits and ethnocentric boundaries. I see the New Covenant's major distinctions as rectifying the core issue of the covenant (the failure of the vassle) and the result is a spirit filled community who observes the Torah. I see a strong continuity of faith throughout the Bible as well as a model of relationship (e.g. in Exodus you have YHWH revealing himself to a people and the salvation he offered was trusting in the blood of flock animals, those who believed in the salvation of YHWH were delivered from bondage and passed through the waters of the Red Sea to be the people of God, at which point the people were instructed into a life of holy living and pleasing communion with God; this closely parallels accepting God and his promised salvation, Yeshua, our deliverance and cleansing and instruction, through the word and Spirit, into a life of holy living unto the God of Israel). I see covenant, with the notable strands of promise (epangela) and revelation of YHWH, as central themes giving strong cohesion to the Bible with the New Covenant ultimately ushering in "Paradise Regained". I see early Christianity more within the bounds of Second Temple Judaisms, even identified among the Jews of the time and much of the strife typical between factions of Judaism of the period. I also see the growth of factionalism recorded in the New Testament, warnings and chastizement, and the events of 70 AD and 134 AD being watershed events that altered the course of history and traditions as well as the composition of the body of Messiah. Issues, like Passover, being full of strife (resulting even in excommunication) in the 2nd century as well as a triad of resentment and hostility between Jews, Christian Gentiles, and Christian Jews (who were really caught in the middle). Of course I have just glossed over a ton of issues and topics with short snippets, so there isn't much to respond to specifically. But it gives you a general view of where I am coming from.
Obviously, for us, our approach to the authority of tradition would be a topic that filters our view of some issues. Another, one founded on grounds we could all discuss with equal footing in regards to weight of sources, would be the nature of the New Covenant. Both of these topics would shed light on how we frame the Sabbath.
And now I said a lot without saying much. I guess my general point is that if there are 10 Christians discussing the Sabbath the same points and texts may not have the same relevance based on other factors. It is akin to discussing the application of womanly unclean laws to a man; it may not be an issue of the continuation of the commandment but the relevance to certain demographics. And so forth.
In this view discussion forums can be very difficult to communicate in as you have an array of people from various perspectives commenting on a single topic. Even among 7th day Sabbath observers I have noticed you have to be careful not to make assumptions because members of groups like SDA, WWCOG, Messianics of various flavors, Orthodox Jews, and so forth that there can be a lot of variety in methodology, application, and relevance in regards to the Sabbath and perephrial issues related to it.
