- Dec 28, 2011
- 1,560
- 276
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Marc,
Outstanding. I appreciate the specific quotes from the article, and your narrowing of the topic a bit. Todah.
So, if I am following you correctly now, I believe I was perfectly ontrack with my earlier comments. Almost all Messianics, Jew and Gentile, entered the Messianic Movement via a church venue. In those venues, we were taught basic fundamental beliefs that largely came from evangelical Christian theology. The first generation of leaders in MJ all started there, and passed most of it on to their students. That's the way things were, and we were all happy with the situation.
As such, Jewish accusations that, "MJ is little more than Christianity with some Yiddish words thrown in for flavor", are largely accurate in their representation.
But I have pursued a course of going back to the Bible with a historical perspective (re-)building my views from the Torah, the Prophets, and the rabbinic discussion. Only after these are firm do I then seek the adaptations, applications, and commentaries on the earlier texts that were developed in the first century Messianic Writings.
I believe my result to be a more faithful representation of "Messianic Judaism", rather than simply a veneer of Yiddishkeit slapped over the Christian theology that has grown up outside of any Jewish influence over the past 2,000 years. I don't have to wrestle with post-first century idealogy and antagonisms. I can let all the texts say what they say, without needing to resort to contorted renderings. And best of all, I don't have to defend ideas that are indefensible and unprovable. I don't have to sensationalize anything, or talk about "kosher pigs". Most of all, I can drop the privatized religion, and talk honestly about Israel as my "community of reference".
While most in the MJ world do still regard themselves as evangelicals, I do not. Which is not to say I think they are bad people, but I do believe the theology held by 99% of Christians is fundamentally flawed, designed from the ground up with the intention of breaking ties with Israel and Israeli institutions like the priesthood, Temple, and even any real reverence for the office of the Israeli king, per sé.
I believe that, as long as Messianics identify as part of the Christian Evangelical community, they will forever harbor the schizophrenic angst this entails. The current topic du jour of "bi-polar ecclesiology" is a direct result of this angst. Having their theology firmly grounded in Christendom, while wanting to maintain the appearance of an authentically Jewish religious expression, the current Messianic leadership find themselves forced to exclude Gentiles from their communities. This is the act of someone who is conflicted and lacking confidence in his own Jewish identity. They think that bloodline determines "authenticity", when Scripture repeatedly denies that option.
I stated before that I have all the patience in the world for anyone, Jew or Gentile, who started in the Church and comes to me seeking help in developing a mature Messianic Perspective. (It did hurt me that you so badly manipulated my words, there.) I do not hate or despise anyone, regardless of origins or bloodline. But I do insist that any significant study of Christian theology is inherently a study in segregation from all semblance of Jewish mindset and practice. The two are simply antithetical, and cannot be reconciled, in my opinion.
The article writer's own mindset is clearly positioned in the evangelical world. Make no mistake about it--he is not neutral in his approach. And he touches on a reality that many do not wish to accept--that the Union and the Alliance are both far more concerned with "culturally Jewish identity markers" than they are with identifying and implementing an authentic form of first century Messianic belief in the Jewish Messiah. Such a community would:
1) welcome both Jews and Gentiles into a common community, where
2) leaders would call out one another for the sins of hypocrisy and bigotry towards the Gentile membership, and
3) new disciples, whether Jewish or Gentile, would be trained to identify with Israel in all significant ways--political, cultural, historical, and geographical.
The theology and practice of an authentic Messianic Jewish community would reflect the mindset, and not just the bloodline, of first century Judaism, including emphasis on the "Son of David" as the dynastic heir of Israel's first King, who will restore Israel and the Israeli institutional forms mentioned above. But Evangelical theology will not allow us to focus on Jewish life-cycle events, Jewish institutions, and Jewish concerns.
When I was a young Messianic, I read an article entitled, "Is It Good for the Jews?" As you can probably guess from the title, this is a driving question in Jewish concerns. Evangelicals will focus on this from only one angle--"Do you believe in Jesus? Then you're good." But an actual Jewish consideration of this topic will be much more nuanced, leading to a discussion that will result in a bonding with the other person. Until we can not only explain why we think, "Jesus is good for the Jews", but also live in a manner that reflects unity with Israel in all aspects, then we will constantly face the wall of separation that has been erected by both Judaism and Christianity for the past two millennia.
That's just the beginning of my thoughts on the subject. I've given this topic a great deal of attention over the past three decades, and the time has been very productive... in my (sometimes) humble opinion.
Outstanding. I appreciate the specific quotes from the article, and your narrowing of the topic a bit. Todah.
This is from the article...
"I will use James Davidson Hunter's definition of evangelicalism, which states that at the doctrinal core, contemporary evangelicals can be identified by their adherence to the belief that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God (on essential matters of faith and life), the belief in the divinity of Christ, and the insistence on the efficacy of Christ's life, death, and physical resurrection for the salvation of the human soul.3 For Hunter, evangelicals are also generally marked by an individualized and experiential orientation toward spiritual salvation and religiosity, and by the conviction of the necessity of actively attempting to proselytize all nonbelievers to the tenets of the evangelical belief system."Then the article proceeds with...
"The rituals of circumcision and baptism are especially relevant as each represents the primary means of entering into a faith community, the first traditionally for the Jews, the second for Christians. In Messianic Judaism both are practiced, and the rituals create affinity with or distance from one or the other faith community.Then the article shows examples of differences in Bar Mitzvah and a Bris. One tying in sort of evangelicalism + tradition into the Bar Mitzvah and Bris and one being more traditionaly Jewish.
Bar/Bat Mitzvahs can be seen as parallels to adult baptism or confirmation in that they also function as entrance rituals into the community, in this case when a child of the congregation comes of age. Teenagers are trained in certain beliefs and practices to prepare them for active participation in the congregation, and in the case of Jewish tradi[bless and do not curse]tion, it is at this point that they come to be held accountable to the law, the commandments of God. As Bar/Bat Mitzvah is a post-bibli-cal tradition, it can also be examined as an indicator of the Union and Alliance's approaches toward Jewish tradition as a whole."
So, if I am following you correctly now, I believe I was perfectly ontrack with my earlier comments. Almost all Messianics, Jew and Gentile, entered the Messianic Movement via a church venue. In those venues, we were taught basic fundamental beliefs that largely came from evangelical Christian theology. The first generation of leaders in MJ all started there, and passed most of it on to their students. That's the way things were, and we were all happy with the situation.
As such, Jewish accusations that, "MJ is little more than Christianity with some Yiddish words thrown in for flavor", are largely accurate in their representation.
But I have pursued a course of going back to the Bible with a historical perspective (re-)building my views from the Torah, the Prophets, and the rabbinic discussion. Only after these are firm do I then seek the adaptations, applications, and commentaries on the earlier texts that were developed in the first century Messianic Writings.
I believe my result to be a more faithful representation of "Messianic Judaism", rather than simply a veneer of Yiddishkeit slapped over the Christian theology that has grown up outside of any Jewish influence over the past 2,000 years. I don't have to wrestle with post-first century idealogy and antagonisms. I can let all the texts say what they say, without needing to resort to contorted renderings. And best of all, I don't have to defend ideas that are indefensible and unprovable. I don't have to sensationalize anything, or talk about "kosher pigs". Most of all, I can drop the privatized religion, and talk honestly about Israel as my "community of reference".
While most in the MJ world do still regard themselves as evangelicals, I do not. Which is not to say I think they are bad people, but I do believe the theology held by 99% of Christians is fundamentally flawed, designed from the ground up with the intention of breaking ties with Israel and Israeli institutions like the priesthood, Temple, and even any real reverence for the office of the Israeli king, per sé.
I believe that, as long as Messianics identify as part of the Christian Evangelical community, they will forever harbor the schizophrenic angst this entails. The current topic du jour of "bi-polar ecclesiology" is a direct result of this angst. Having their theology firmly grounded in Christendom, while wanting to maintain the appearance of an authentically Jewish religious expression, the current Messianic leadership find themselves forced to exclude Gentiles from their communities. This is the act of someone who is conflicted and lacking confidence in his own Jewish identity. They think that bloodline determines "authenticity", when Scripture repeatedly denies that option.
I stated before that I have all the patience in the world for anyone, Jew or Gentile, who started in the Church and comes to me seeking help in developing a mature Messianic Perspective. (It did hurt me that you so badly manipulated my words, there.) I do not hate or despise anyone, regardless of origins or bloodline. But I do insist that any significant study of Christian theology is inherently a study in segregation from all semblance of Jewish mindset and practice. The two are simply antithetical, and cannot be reconciled, in my opinion.
The article writer's own mindset is clearly positioned in the evangelical world. Make no mistake about it--he is not neutral in his approach. And he touches on a reality that many do not wish to accept--that the Union and the Alliance are both far more concerned with "culturally Jewish identity markers" than they are with identifying and implementing an authentic form of first century Messianic belief in the Jewish Messiah. Such a community would:
1) welcome both Jews and Gentiles into a common community, where
2) leaders would call out one another for the sins of hypocrisy and bigotry towards the Gentile membership, and
3) new disciples, whether Jewish or Gentile, would be trained to identify with Israel in all significant ways--political, cultural, historical, and geographical.
The theology and practice of an authentic Messianic Jewish community would reflect the mindset, and not just the bloodline, of first century Judaism, including emphasis on the "Son of David" as the dynastic heir of Israel's first King, who will restore Israel and the Israeli institutional forms mentioned above. But Evangelical theology will not allow us to focus on Jewish life-cycle events, Jewish institutions, and Jewish concerns.
When I was a young Messianic, I read an article entitled, "Is It Good for the Jews?" As you can probably guess from the title, this is a driving question in Jewish concerns. Evangelicals will focus on this from only one angle--"Do you believe in Jesus? Then you're good." But an actual Jewish consideration of this topic will be much more nuanced, leading to a discussion that will result in a bonding with the other person. Until we can not only explain why we think, "Jesus is good for the Jews", but also live in a manner that reflects unity with Israel in all aspects, then we will constantly face the wall of separation that has been erected by both Judaism and Christianity for the past two millennia.
That's just the beginning of my thoughts on the subject. I've given this topic a great deal of attention over the past three decades, and the time has been very productive... in my (sometimes) humble opinion.
Upvote
0