I've also been considering my options for worship and service as defined by the MJ/BE movement. I basically have two choices:
- I can attend an MJ congregation with the understanding that I really have no contribution to make, at least in terms of a formal "ministry".
- I can attend a Sunday-keeping church, where my "ministry" options can be tailored to my skill sets but I have to keep rather mum on my knowledge and perspective on the Torah, the Jewish people, and Israel.
- I designed and maintain the congregation's website.
- I created and maintain the congregation's blog including researching and writing all of the blog content.
- I research and teach most of the classes offered by the congregation, including the Shabbat teaching and any other Bible classes we offer.
- As a board member, I participate in the overall planning and guidance of the congregation's vision, mission, and organization.
Being human, I have my faults and probably pride is one of those faults. I'm an introvert, but I do enjoy teaching. I particularly enjoy the research and learning aspects (I have two bachelors degrees and a masters degree, so I guess I'm a good student). I also enjoy the discussion process in the teachings; the exchange of ideas, the passion of expression of faith, watching the Spirit of God move among us as we seek greater intimacy and understanding.
I also enjoy writing. I guess that shouldn't be much of a shock. I work as a technical writer for a software company by day and write books by night and on Sundays. I also write articles, essays, book reviews, and blog incessantly (this blog is only one of several). For me, the writing and teaching aspects of my personality and my contribution to my congregation are more or less interchangeable.
NOTE: I should comment at this point that when I say "my congregation", I don't say it from a position of leadership or ownership so much as from a position of belonging and fellowship. I don't mean to say that the congregation is "mine" in the sense that I'm a boss or a leader or a big shot of any kind, but in the sense of being a part of a whole as in "my family" or "my community" or "my hometown".Now let's return to my options as listed above. In an MJ/BE congregation, I wouldn't be qualified to perform any of the roles I do now because I'm not Jewish. In a Jewish congregation, only Jewish people teach, lead, write, build and maintain web content, discuss, contribute, and add value, at least as it has been explained to me. My "role" as such, would be to pray (omitting certain prayers that pertain just to the Jewish people), worship God, attend classes (being a notorious loudmouth, I'd probably ask questions and even offer opinions) and...and... What else? Oh, as a Gentile member of the congregation, just like the Jewish members, I would contribute financially. In other congregations, I've mopped floors, washed dishes, and pulled weeds, and those tasks are generic enough to where I would be qualified to perform them in an MJ/BE congregation. Is it just vanity that I feel a little deflated here?
My other option, as defined by MJ/BE, is to return to the traditional Christian church. Depending on the size of the church and the roles already occupied, I wouldn't necessarily be barred from most or all of the roles I now perform, at least not because of ethnicity. I can only imagine, if I were allowed to teach and write, I would either have to severely censor myself so as not to go against the grain of traditional theology, or just not enter those positions at all (or get criticized, edited, or tossed out on my ear for refuting replacement theology, the Sunday "sabbath", and the church being "spiritual Israel"). I could also mop floors, wash dishes, and pull weeds, and like I said, I've done that in church settings in the past and even occasionally in my current setting. In a small congregation, if you see a need, fulfill it.
So what really is my problem? Put another way, what really is the problem? Out of all the reasons that MJ/BE gives for the separation of roles between Jews and Gentiles in the MJ/BE context, I realized that one really big reason is historical. Look at what happened the first time Jews and Gentiles got together as branches on the olive tree (natural and grafted) and worshiped together.
The latest statistics I can find tell me that the worldwide Jewish population is 13.3 million people. That's roughly 0.2% of the overall human population of the planet. Kind of outnumbered. That's what happened to the early Messianic movement as far as history goes. As more and more Gentiles entered the Messianic Jewish movement in the early centuries of the Common Era, they (we Gentiles) displaced the Jews and eventually replaced them as leaders, teachers, and finally, we rewrote the theology and history of "the church" to favor Gentile Christians and disfavor Messianic Jews. This worked so well that eventually all Jewish people left the movement and totally denied the Christian Jesus as having any claim to Messiahship.
Here we are again. I mentioned that only about 0.2% of the world's population is Jewish. My best guess is only a very tiny percentage of that 0.2% are openly Messianic (I have a theory that some Jews are very quietly Messianic in Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox synagogues, but except for a few anecdotal tales, I have no hard evidence). So there are a tiny cluster of Messianic Jews in MJ synagogues and a horde of Gentiles clamoring to get in. Yeah, if I were a Messianic Jew, I'd be nervous, too. One of the lessons we all tend to accept is that history repeats itself.
I really think this is the answer to the issue of Gentiles in MJ. Jews are few and Gentiles are many. We have a tendency to enter into an environment, take over, consume all available resources, and then move on. I'm vaguely quoting Agent Smith (played by Hugo Weaving) delivering his comparison of human beings as a virus to a captive Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) from the film The Matrix (1999). Actually, when I was pondering these questions earlier while getting ready to go to work, my first thought was of the character Remy in the film Ratatouille (2007). If you've seen this rather charming Pixar film, you know that Remy is a rat. He comes from a family of rats and lives in a community of rats. All of Remy's family and friends are typical rats; hungry and dirty and thieving...however Remy is unique.
Of all of the rats anywhere, only Remy doesn't see human beings as the enemy. He admires human beings. He wants to be like human beings. He reads, walks upright, and understands spoken human languages...well, at least French. What he does best, like what even few human beings are able to do, is he can cook...and cook very well. But he's got a problem. He's a rat.
It doesn't matter how well Remy can cook, and what incredible delicacies he can make, and how clean and well behaved he is, and how much he admires and respects human beings, almost every human around him, when they see him, especially in a kitchen, tries to kill him.
He has to fight and fight hard, just to get one or two people to understand who he really is and what he's actually capable of, and to finally accept that he can cook very, very well. He has a unique skill set that is trapped in a rat's body. He can cook, but the overwhelming percentage of the human population would rather see him poisoned or die in a trap then live out his dream.
Gentiles aren't rats (most of the time) but there are a lot of us. We can behave rather poorly (well, that's true of all humans). Historically, we have entered into a Jewish worship form (by invitation, if we are to believe Peter, Paul, Yeshua, and God) and we've completely mucked it up. We've made life hell on wheels for the Jews who originally invited us into the club and now they don't really trust us. Who could blame them? How can they protect themselves from "the rats"?
The easiest way for a smaller people group to protect themselves from a much larger people group is isolation. We have seen that across the long expanse of history and not just as applied to Jews. Visit one of America's older cities such as Chicago or New York. You'll find neighborhoods that are strictly divided by people groups. Within those neighborhoods, all (or most) of the businesses, resources, and activities are organized around that one, specific people group. While I can go into most of those neighborhoods as a "non-resident" (let's say I want to visit a Japanese market in the Japan Town area of San Francisco), everyone will be friendly and I'll be able to do business, but it would be exceedingly rare for me to actually try to live there.
You can look at Jewish communities this way. You can look at Messianic Jewish communities this way but MJ communities have a built-in wrinkle. By mandate, they are supposed to invite Gentiles into the club. Read the end of Matthew 28 and you'll see that Yeshua directed his Jewish disciples to make disciples of the Gentiles, too. This means Jews had to teach Gentiles to be students of the Jewish Messiah by imitation, and you can only teach by imitation if you let people see you and interact with you. Hard to do by remote control.
Given all that, how do MJ communities fulfill their mandate and at the same time protect themselves from the dangers that history so specifically illustrates? By not letting us "cook". This makes sense. Listen.
This is just a guess, but it's probably a good one. Let's say that, as the first century Gentile population grew in the Messianic movement, we started doing things like teaching and leading. This would have been necessary in congregations that were mostly or exclusively Gentile, in parts of the then civilized world that didn't have a large Jewish population. I can imagine Paul coming into a town or an area with few Jews. He'd go to those Jews first with the message of the Good News of the Messiah, and then move on to the Gentiles. The Apostolic Scriptures record that many Gentiles were hungry for the message and eager to accept it. While monotheism and faith in the One God was historically common to Israel, it was unique, fresh, and invigorating to Gentiles who had been trapped in the darkness of pagan polytheism. Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit and be saved, too. Even Peter was amazed.
However, as more and more Gentiles streamed in (Yeshua did say "all the nations"), they learned more, started leading local congregations, started teaching, and eventually took over. Maybe they resented their Jewish mentors and their "chosen" status. I don't know what they thought. I do know that as human beings, we have a tendency to rewrite what God gives us and to recreate it into our own image. It took less than three centuries for "the church" to replace "the Messianic Congregation" (though if you examine that history, "the church", though exclusively Gentile, was far from united and probably far from God).
If I were a Messianic Jew, aware of the overall history of Jewish people in relation to Gentiles, I'd be cautious of even those Gentiles who seemed benign and friendly. One way to avoid repeating history is to recognize the "mistakes" of previous encounters and avoid them. If allowing Gentiles to teach and lead results in Gentiles taking over the show and either marginalizing or kicking Jews out of their own synagogues, then don't let Gentiles teach and lead. You may have to graft the alien branches onto your native root, but you can choose where and how to do the grafting, to minimize the danger to the health of the natural branches.
While all this sounds reasonable and has the support of the historical record, this perspective also has to admit that the vast majority of Gentiles are "rats" who can't be trusted. This may be something of an exaggeration and perhaps I'm being unfair in my depiction, but when you look at the core statements and desired results of MJ/BE, I think it can be supported. Sure, MJ may contain the occasional "Remy" who is jumping up and down in the back screaming, "But I can cook!" but how do you know you can trust him (or her)? Will MJ even recognize that one small voice crying out among the choir of the other Gentiles?
From this perspective, it doesn't matter if I can "cook". It would be just too dangerous to let me do so. Maybe as an individual I would do little damage, but when other Gentiles saw what I was doing, they'd want to do the same thing...first a few, then more, then more, then more, and more and more and... You get the idea.
If I want to "cook" I either have to do so within the context of my current OL congregation and be willing to accept the perpetual criticism of my MJ "neighbors" for (supposedly) being anti-Church, a replacement theologist, and all of the other horrible assumptions that are made about anyone wearing my label, or I can retreat into the church where paradoxically, Messianic Jews will feel safe from me while I participate in a worship form that almost always preaches replacement theology.
Yes, I've been more than a little "tongue-in-cheek" and probably kind of rude in my blog today, but I wanted to illustrate what MJ/BE looks like from Remy's point of view. While in the Pixar universe, Remy is one-of-a-kind (and in the real world, as far as we know, all rats are vermin, dangerous, and worthy of extermination), there may be more than one "Remy" among the Gentiles seeking God's Word and God's way. When Yeshua gave the directive to make disciples of the Gentiles, I believe he didn't expect he was automatically dooming the Jews in the Messianic movement to displacement by Gentiles nor condemning Gentiles perpetually to the "cheap seats" in the Kingdom's "opera house".
So far, I've been looking at all of this from a historical and human perspective. I think we're missing something. If I'm just a rat, why did God wire me to "cook"?
Afterword: Actually, one of the things I can't do is cook, at least not well. I'm really good a barbecuing (charcoal only...no gas) and making omelets, but that's about the best I can do. In all other areas of cooking, I'm so-so (I do know how to iron, however). Let's face it, I'm no Remy.
44 comments:
James, another great post. I find your perspective quite refreshing.
Let me suggest something...
Jews were to make desciples of all nations. However, that role has been / or is being accomplished INDIRECTLY. How so? Well, starting with a few of Yeshua's desciples venturing into Gentile "territory" and presenting a few of them with the Good News, it was then NATURAL for Gentiles to eventually take over the teaching ministries to their OWN people (as well as Gentiles of other nations). I think it's a matter of simple logistics. In fact, I think it's was G-d's plan for this to be so.
How do we know that? Well, how many apostles (all Jews) did G-d send to minister to the Jews, and how many did he send to the Gentiles? As you noted, there are only so many Jews to go around and they certainly couldn't and can't be present in any large number in any one Gentile congregation in the world. It's seems obvious (to me at least) that ALL-Gentile congregations (sans any Jews) of the nations, congregations that are not "Torah/Jewish traditions observant" has been G-d's plan all along.
As far as One-Law places go, the issue with them is the One-Law idea itself, that's a teaching that Gentiles are obligated to observe Mosaic Covenant. Had it been G-d's plan all along that Gentiles become "Torah-observant," it would have made sense that the Gospel preached over the last two thousand years would have included that message as well. But somehow, G-d did not find it necessary (which goes back to Acts 15). As a matter of fact, historically speaking, whenever someone TRIED to integrate Mosaic Law among the Gentiles, it always invariably degenerated into wackiness or cultist/exclusivist theologies - perhaps this is because you simply can't graft the Mosaic Law onto a Gentile population.
Why not create Gentile-led congregations which are NOT One-Law but are friendly to Torah without taking on Jewish observances or rituals (that's they are not "antinominan" or anti-Jewish, but neither they are Judaizers, that is compelling Gentiles to live as Jews), friendly to Israel and the Jewish people?
Something else to think about it - if Jewish people's rejection of their own Messiah is what was needed to push the Gospel out to the nations, it's safe to say that G-d only needed the initial Jewish "seed" to accomplish his goal of bringing the Good News to Gentiles.
James,
I believe that you have articulated the current tension with the right amount of ingredients. I had thought to let it stew awhile, but then I decided to serve up a portion of my own since you and I work in the same kitchen.
I have recently written about the idea of people who are considered to be Gentiles and their relationship to the Torah of YHWH. I have included a small section on the misunderstanding and misuse of Acts chapter 15 because it seems that the MJ community is using that historical incident as a hinge point in their effort to maintain their identity. (to be clear, it is not the identity of brother Judah, the tent stake holder, that is in question here; not with me or with anyone I know personally).
You see, Sha'ul did include in his letters the "obligation" of all believers to keep Torah. But the Torah he told everyone to keep was not recognizable by the majority of believers, in Jerusalem or anywhere else. Which is why the Jews in the Temple sought to kill him, even though he himself was Torah observant and did not teach otherwise to anyone.
Now I can't be in the same room with Gene without giving him a little poke in the ribs, so here you go:
there were eleven talmadim who were Jews and one Israelite, Natan'el. You say tomato, I say tomahto....
Ef
Great post James, I would say you are onto something.
As I see it, the problem lies within the standard of obedience to God. Let me explain, Gentiles separating themselves from Jews and becoming Christianity and a anti-Semitic religion at that, is due to separating themselves from the standard, Torah, and separating themselves from who they acquired this belief, JEWS. Following Torah inevitably brings you closer to God and to His culture, people, Land, etc... Torah sets up a standard that would not allow for crazy doctrines of "kill the Jews", or "gentiles(the church) replaced Israel", or "Jews have no purpose in a congregation(marginalized)".
Example of this, if you had twin boys, and one boy could do anything in the house he wanted, and the other one could not, you would have major problems... If Gentiles can do whatever they want with no responsibility to Torah, we will continue to see Jews persecuted by Gentiles, or Jews being marginalized by Gentiles... We have to remember, Gentiles were coming into a flock that is not their own, they are leaving their own to join a Jewish flock, as Yeshua iterates in John 10:16. I have no problem with Gentiles leading, as long as they do it according to the religion they joined, so when a gentile comes to the Faith of Israel, they must abide by the rules of Israel... Christianity has left the rules of Israel and developed their own religion apart from Israel and against Israel, and thus look what has come from it in regards to Israel, Israel has been replaced, Jews don't matter to God and Jesus turned out to be a good Roman/Greek Citizen, far from context and purpose, and a bunch of Jews murdered. Is this what God wanted?
"You see, Sha'ul did include in his letters the "obligation" of all believers to keep Torah."
Where, Efrayim, which letter?
"If Gentiles can do whatever they want with no responsibility to Torah, we will continue to see Jews persecuted by Gentiles, or Jews being marginalized by Gentiles..."
But that's the whole crux of the matter - Gentiles CAN'T do whatever they want, and they couldn't do whatever they wanted even before Israel ever bacame a nation or Written Torah given to the Jewish people (or why else would G-d punish the whole world except Noah and his family?). And Gentile are NOT responsible to keep all of the Torah as given to Moses to Israel. This is because while the Torah of Moses was only given to Israel/Jewish people (and much of it only applicable to them, the Temple, the Land, the tribes, the priests, the Levites, etc.), G-d's standards of right and wrong are embedded into every human being (i.e. Torah that is written on the heart per Romans 2:12-16). It is by the Torah written on the hearts of Gentiles will the Gentiles be judged. As it says in the same passage:
"All who sin APART from the Torah will also perish APART from the Torah, and all who sin under the Torah will be judged by the Torah."
Can't it really get any more clear than that? Oye!
"there were eleven talmadim who were Jews and one Israelite, Natan'el. You say tomato, I say tomahto...."
Efrayim, do you mean to say that the eleven were Jews, but not "Israelites" (unlike Nataniel?)
So, when Shaul says of himself "I am an Israelite" (Romans 11:1), and then says of himself "I am a Jew" (Acts 21:39), was the man confused? Or is someone else confused?
Gene,
Read my blog post titled, "Torah of Messiah-is it different" to see where Sha'ul taught the Torah to believers, Jew or Gentile.
I can call myself an American or I can call myself a Christian or I can call myself an Irishman or I can call myself an Israelite or I can call myself a Gentile, or a dog, or a minister, or a wild olive branch or a Jew or a believer or a fellow-heir or a son of YHWH.
But that would be confusing would it not? Should I use the common vernacular of my neighborhood, or yours? Do American colloquialisms provide the needed accuracy for the delineation of the ethnic lines which are in question here?
If you want to use the word "Jew" to mean "all" Israelites on the planet, you are welcome to do so.
But does that add to anyone's understanding of the debate, or does that keep the debate going?
Since you and I have been through many scriptures together over the last two years (have we been friends for that long?) I would say that now it seems we must find some other way to explain our positions.
I don't know if I can do that.
Ef
But that's the whole crux of the matter - Gentiles CAN'T do whatever they want, and they couldn't do whatever they wanted even before Israel ever bacame a nation or Written Torah given to the Jewish people (or why else would G-d punish the whole world except Noah and his family?). And Gentile are NOT responsible to keep all of the Torah as given to Moses to Israel. This is because while the Torah of Moses was only given to Israel/Jewish people (and much of it only applicable to them, the Temple, the Land, the tribes, the priests, the Levites, etc.), G-d's standards of right and wrong are embedded into every human being (i.e. Torah that is written on the heart per Romans 2:12-16). It is by the Torah written on the hearts of Gentiles will the Gentiles be judged. As it says in the same passage:
Your statements miss one very important point, and that is that the gentiles are coming into covenant with the God of Israel, what you stated is correct for those who are outside of God's covenant, but when Gentiles take on the covenant, they take on a lot more responsibilities, than your non-covenantal gentile. Something you completely ignored. You have to understand, that when one joined Israel, they did not continue in their previous ways, they took on the ways of an Israelite... Very simple concept found throughout all of scripture, not in the least new.
Gene: good to see that you rescued your forum from the 'hi-jacker'
James: where do you find the time to be so prolific? I have so little time to surf, or comment on any blog (it's so rare). Yet, I'm stirred by what everyone is saying.
I know I'm not so learned as others who comment here, but it seems to me that when G-d gave His holy Torah to Israel at Mt Sinai, it was to a MIXED multitude. The same people He brought out of Mitzrayim, passed through the waters onto Mt Sinai. Didn't they ALL agree to the covenant He was establishing with them? Yes, there are some within Israel that have different roles (i.e.: Levites, and even within them, the sons of Aharon), that others are not obligated to do, but the rest of the Torah was for the native and foreigner among them.
Of this mixed part of the multitude, where were they if they didn't become part of the other 11 tribes (I didn't read of any 'Otherites')? Was there a formal conversion made to 'become' an Israelite/Jewish/Hebrew? It seems that they didn't circumsise their kids, or themselves, until they were about the enter the Land (the 2nd attempt). Yet, the mixed somehow became part of the native - the wild with the natural.
I wish I could find more time to comment more, but I got to go re get ready for Shabbat.
Shalom y'all!
"good to see that you rescued your forum from the 'hi-jacker'"
Thanks for the tip, Marco!
"Yet, the mixed somehow became part of the native - the wild with the natural."
It's only an assumption that the mixed multitudes coming out of Egypt also partook of the covenant. That very assumption contradicts the very Torah that they were supposedly also given:
"Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD." (Deuteronomy 23:7-8)"
It appears built into the the Torah of Moshe that foreigners (even those CLOSEST to Israel by blood, like Edomites!) could enter the congregation of Israel (partake of the covenant) only in their third generation (meaning only their grandchildren were eligible for membership). So, how could one say that G-d ignored all that, contradicted his own Torah and just had all the foreigners (many of whom were both Edomites and Egyptians, no doubt) freely enter the covenant from the first generation?
Not only were the foreigners (with exception of specific peoples of Canaan) were only allowed into the covenant community in a 3rd generation, it was totally OPTIONAL for them to do so. This is why Torah has all those laws for dealing with foreigners who reside in Israel.
Another clue that the mixed multitudes were not automatically accepted and were even separate from, is Nehemiah . I believe that following a precedent, Israelites who came from exile in Babylon were specifically ordered to separate themselves from the "mixed multitude" that left with them from Babylonia:
"So it was, when they had heard the Torah, that they separated all the mixed multitude from Israel." (Nehemiah 13:3)
Nehemiah 13:1-3,
"On that day they read aloud from the book of Moses in the hearing of the people; and there was found written in it that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever enter the assembly of God, because they did not meet the sons of Israel with bread and water, but hired Balaam against them to curse them. However, our God turned the curse into a blessing. So when they heard the law, they excluded all foreigners from Israel."
Would it be fair to accuse the Israelites of excluding "all" foreigners when the Torah had only mentioned the Ammonites and the Moabites? Or were they just being careful and getting rid of everyone who didn't have their ancestry in order? A case of adding to and overstepping the commandments?
Maybe being exiled from your land gives you a passion for keeping it when, and if, you ever return.
And so Nehemiah argued with and fought with those who had foreign wives and half breed children and chased them all out of Judea.
Scripture doesn't say that those people of mixed marriages did anything wrong except being married.
So maybe that would take care of this whole debate. Purify the people, cleanse the sanctuary and the temple, chase out the foreigners, close the door.
Ef
"So maybe that would take care of this whole debate. Purify the people, cleanse the sanctuary and the temple, chase out the foreigners, close the door."
This would be the proper procedure even for today, expect that G-d in his mercy provided another way: Gentiles will be accepted as they are, without conversion to Judaism (without coming under Mosaic Covenant), without become Torah observant, without taking on Jewish tradition. Astonishingly to the Jews in the first century, through Yeshua uncircumcised Gentiles can partake in the SPIRITUAL BLESSINGS of the New Covenant made with Israel (namely, eternal life and citizenship in G-d's Kingdom) and become fellow members of the G-d's family along with the Jewish people.
Gene, as always, your answers are well thought out and well written, but, in this case, they don't address the actual theme of the article. This isn't about what Gentiles "get" from the relationship (eternal life, citizenship in the Kingdom of God), but what they can "give" (if anything) within the MJ/BE worship context.
"what they [Gentile] can "give" (if anything) within the MJ/BE worship context."
James, Gentiles can GIVE everything that Jews can give. They can teach (although matters pertaining to Jewish issues / Torah / education of Jewish children, preparations for Bar Mitzva should be taught by Jews), visit the sick, tend to the widows and orphans, give to the poor (all poor, and especially the poor of Israel - per NT precedent), share the Good News of the Kingdom with everyone, etc. and etc. I can go on!
However, some things (like having a decision making authority, interpretation of halacha and direction of a community) Gentiles should only be able to do in a Gentile community and leave the leadership of Jewish communities to the Jews themselves.
*Cough, cough* *ahem* Excuse me. I was startled while drinking a glass of water and reading your comments at the same time, Gene. This is the first time I've read in weeks of comments from you and Derek, that Gentiles had any sort of role in MJ/BE besides sitting in our seats and keeping our place.
I think part of the problem, at least in blog comments, is that MJ/BE defines itself in terms of what Gentiles can't do and don't have access to, rather than actually stating that Gentiles have the ability to actively participate in the MJ community. One of the key points in belonging to any community is having a role. I've been harping on this quite a while, but up until this moment, I've never seen it articulated in anyway. Why was this point so difficult to arrive at? In this article, I've mentioned a lot of reasons why MJ likely would keep Gentile members contained and at a distance. Could that be the issue?
So metaphorically speaking Gene (and I never did find out if you have a sense of humor), I can cook, but I'm assigned to the peanut butter and jelly menu. Jewish members put together the lox and bagels. True? ;-)
"*Cough, cough* *ahem* Excuse me. I was startled while drinking a glass of water and reading your comments at the same time, Gene. "
Careful there James, or I'll be forced to put up a warning next to all my comments:)
"I think part of the problem, at least in blog comments, is that MJ/BE defines itself in terms of what Gentiles can't do and don't have access to, rather than actually stating that Gentiles have the ability to actively participate in the MJ community."
James, what is MJ/BE? Does it not include Messianic Jewish AND Gentile congregations (Christian churches, etc.)? That's the definition of Bilateral Ecclesiology - Gentiles and Jews DO NOT HAVE TO be part of the same communities or communities that are organized and live in the same way. Jews are not to live as Gentiles and Gentiles are not to live [or be compelled to, at least - as they would be certainly feel if they wanted to participate FULLY in MJ communities] as Jews. Churches are perfectly viable places where Gentiles can live out their faith, where they can DO and GIVE without being constrained by Mosaic Law or Jewish traditions. It doesn't mean a total disconnect from Jewish believers, since even in the Kingdom Gentiles will be going to Jerusalem (coming from their own nations, geographically speaking) at least once a year to worship with the Jews. Gentiles and Jews in Yeshua can and should fellowship with one another - but it doesn't have to be within the confines of the Jewish community.
James,
Is there any way to reach you in private? E-mail adrress?
"So metaphorically speaking Gene (and I never did find out if you have a sense of humor), I can cook, but I'm assigned to the peanut butter and jelly menu. Jewish members put together the lox and bagels. True? ;-)"
Some people prefer peanut butter and jelly to lox and bagels:)
But remember our Master's words: "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9:35) So, perhaps serving all those Jews [and Gentiles] a "lowly" peanut butter and jelly may be just the way to do it.
I'm pretty sure I never mentioned anything about expecting Jews to live like Gentiles. Anyway, I'm fairly certain that most people in the traditional Christian church have never even heard of Bilateral Ecclesiology must less identify with it (I mentioned it to a traditional Christian friend of mine yesterday and she was baffled).
You say that churches are "perfectly viable places where Gentiles can live out their faith", and for many Gentiles that is quite true, but to the degree that I get calls and emails from people in Churches almost daily asking questions about the Hebraic perspective of Yeshua and the Bible, I also think there is a strong desire, at least among some Gentiles, to want to learn more than they're getting in a Kay Arthur guided Bible study.
Also, I seriously doubt that it was Paul's or Yeshua's intention to establish the Gentile Christian church as it is specifically expressed today. Even if you are correct in your belief that Jews and Gentiles must almost always worship as separate units, the Gentile expression should still look quite a bit different than what it does. I suspect that post-the second coming, when Yeshua comes to straighten us all out, it will look different (and who knows, he may make a few adjustments to MJ as well).
We human beings have introduced more than a few wobbles to the course set before us 20 centuries ago in terms of bringing Gentile sheep under a Jewish shepherd. It's what human beings historically have done with God's Word and God's desire. I don't think we're going to get closer to understanding how God actually wants Gentiles to live, by maintaining the status quo and keeping everything separate and "safe".
So we all just go back to church and hold our collective noses during Christmas and Easter? We can ignore YHWH's calendar, His feast days and His Shabbat and do what the Catholic church says to do on the first day of the week? Go to "church" and "worship" as prescribed by the local "leader" of that particular congregation?
You know Gene, the requirements of the new covenant are the same for you as they are for me. Why are you not comfortable in a local "church"? Do what they teach and practice cross you up in some way? They would certainly let you be Jewish there if you wanted to be, probably even show you some deference. (some of my best friends, etc....)
But I would never suggest that you actually attend a "church" because I respect you and your beliefs. I didn't say that I agree with all of them, but I do respect them.
Do you not respect mine?
Ef
@Gene. I wasn't intimating that the PB&J was "lowly", just different. ;-)
@Dan Try jamesmpyles AT gmail.com
"Do you not respect mine [beliefs]?"
Efrayim....
If you STRONGLY disagree with someone else' beliefs but say that you are respectful of them, what you most likely mean is that you really are not respectful of the beliefs themselves (how can anyone respect what they perceive as "falsehood"?), but rather of the right of that person to HOLD those "disagreeable" beliefs. (I am not talking about the beliefs that we may be indifferent to or those which are merely personal preferences, but crucial ones those that strongly disagree with.)
So, Efrayim, I respect you as a person, as a fellow believr and I respect your right to believe whatever it is you want to believe, but the belief in "Two-House" or "One-Law" I cannot and do not respect because I find it false.
Hey guys,
I wanted to refrain from commenting, but I have one suggestion: don't let the Gene Shlomoviches of this world decide for you where you can or cannot worship the God of Israel. Next thing we know they will dectate to us what color underpants we should wear.
Follow God's Spirit, not "Don Quixote Shlomovich," who is in utter confusion where to look at the real problem of Jewish assimilation. Let me assure you, the Onw-Law movement is not a threat.
Well OK then Gene, no PBJ sandwiches for you.
"Follow God's Spirit, not "Don Quixote Shlomovich," who is in utter confusion where to look at the real problem of Jewish assimilation. Let me assure you, the Onw-Law movement is not a threat."
Gut Shabbos to you:)
James,
The e-mail address did not work.
It should have. Anyway, try james.pyles AT gmail.com (the AT is really "@")
Although Shabbat is still a few hours away in my little corner of the world, I can't help but evaluate and re-evaluate my faith and my worship with each of the blogs I write and with each of the responses I read. There are still a few tasks to be done before I can arrive at any conclusions, but it appears now that some sort of change is virtually inevitable.
What that change will be, I still can't say. I have two significant conversations yet to have with people, one where I can't meet with the person for another week and a half. I also am expecting Kinzer's book to arrive in the next couple of weeks, and I said I'd read it and post a review before coming to any conclusions.
I have to say, given everything that's happened up to this point, I wish I could approach the Shabbat with more optimism.
Good Shabbos.
Oh duh!
Thus said Hashem: Accursed is t he man who trusts in people and makes flesh [and blood] his strength and turns his heart away from Hashem, He will be like a lone tree in the desert, an dwill not see when goodness comes; it dwells in parched lands in the wilderness, in a salty, uninhabited land. -Jeremiah 17:5-6
Hi James,
I appreciate your struggle. As someone in the 7th day sabbath movement, which focuses on the paganization of the church instead of the Gentilization, I find it hard to participate in Sunday churches. There are core doctrines that have to be believed and practiced to do anything besides play, pay and pray. I used to attend 7th day churches, but they started dying out when the Messianic movement rolled in and sucked up many of the truth-focused Gentiles in our congregations. Now the 7th day churches are few and far between. Many are ethnic, and being white I don't speak Asian or Spanish languages. So I attend Sunday churches now, but I am preparing to develop a teaching ministry for starting a local 7th day church. Then we can develop our own cultural expression of Biblical living without making Jew or Gentile traditions an issue. Just one new man living in the covenants that have around since Abraham.
Learning to live Spirit-immersed,
Brett
Thanks for your comments, Brett.
This has been a struggle at times and it can be very discouraging to watch the various factions of the community of faith present contradictory and conflicting perspectives on who Gentiles and Jews are as human beings and as creations of the living God. I entered into Erev Shabbat feeling somewhat down but read a passage from the Prophet Jeremiah (I quoted it in the comments) that reminded me "the buck" doesn't stop with man's opinions and commentaries, but with God.
I experienced a wonderful Shabbat service at my congregation yesterday, and God brought to us some people I haven't seen in a long time let me meet a fellow who works at a Christian school in South Korea.
Listening to them and hearing their comments and questions, I realized that I do have a purpose in God's service and our congregation does have worth in God's eyes. We aren't simply the attributes and "things" we are called because of the label we are assigned.
Regardless of the labels we attach ourselves or to other faith communities, the names are less important than the intent and purpose of the congregations and the people in them. We are known by our fruit, not by the names other people call us or how we're perceived through the lens of other people's theologies or requirements.
We are here to encourage each other in our faith, but when that doesn't happen, The Actions of God and His Powerful Word are there to build us up.
Blessings.
@James, I find each of your posts thoughtful and gracious. Thanks for taking time.
To quote Colette, "Anyone can cook, but not everyone should cook."
The role of leaders should not be defined by ethnicity, but whether they lead others to keep the commandments (Deut 12:32-13:4).
What we saw when the church came into existence in the Second Century CE, was that men (Gentiles) abandoned the teaching of the Apostles. It was not the numbers of Gentiles, it was the acceptance of those who wanted to distinguish themselves as other than Jewish.
As Hegesippus is quoted to have said, "Up to that period the church had remained like a virgin pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the preaching of salvation, they still lurked in some dark place of concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of apostles had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the Godlike wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the confederacy of Godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching "knowledge falsely so called."
@Gene: Please don't take this the wrong way (I love a curmudgeon), but for the life of me, I cannot understand Boaz Michael's railing against "One Law" meanies - you have got to be the "meanest" blogger out there < grin >.
I love you brother (sound of growling).
Is Boaz railing against "One-Law" meanies?
Who would have thunk something like this? (tongue-in cheek)....
"Gene: Please don't take this the wrong way (I love a curmudgeon), but for the life of me, I cannot understand Boaz Michael's railing against "One Law" meanies - you have got to be the "meanest" blogger out there < grin >."
Dear Rick,
My words are not "mean" nor am I out to hurt "One-Law" people - I do not call people names, make fun of them, hurl abuses and curses on them.
I understand that you and others like you may be quite sincere in what you want to believe. What you probably find "mean" and unsettling is me challenging your theology and your world view. Would you rather me sing "Kumbaya," be PC and embrace teachings and ideologies that I find aberrant, harmful to the Body and full of rotten fruit? Would you do that if you were me? I find that many One-Law-yers have no qualms with villainizing Christianity and berating what they imagine as "apartheid" in Jewish Messianic Judaism, but they have a hard time accepting criticism.
I cannot sit back pretend like we are one big happy "messianic family," that everything is fine - everything is far from fine. I can't do that, because that's not love - it's not loving to keep silent and do nothing when one sees wrong being perpetrated and it directly affects members of Messiah's community today and may do more harm tomorrow. I am glad that folks like Boaz Michael at FFOZ took a stand for truth, even if it cost them dearly.
Be blessed.
Thanks for the recent comments. I've been spending the day over a hot keyboard writing the chapter in a very long book writing project (nothing to do with faith, religion or the like). Decided to peek in here and see what was going on.
Did I miss something? How did Boaz Michael's name get brought up? I didn't mention him in my blog or any of my comments.
Gene said: Would you rather me sing "Kumbaya," be PC and embrace teachings and ideologies that I find aberrant, harmful to the Body and full of rotten fruit? Would you do that if you were me? I find that many One-Law-yers have no qualms with villainizing Christianity and berating what they imagine as "apartheid" in Jewish Messianic Judaism, but they have a hard time accepting criticism.
Since you classify me as "One Law", am I to take it that you find me harmful to the body, full of rotten fruit, and that you believe I "villianize" Christianity? If so, please let me know what I've said or done to lead you to this conclusion. If not, please watch your generalizations. My experience with OL is that congregations can be highly variable, with no two being exactly alike. I hope this doesn't mean that I have a hard time accepting criticism (though I haven't seen too many people or groups who have a very easy time accepting criticism).
Blessings.
NOTE: I removed the previous incarnation of this comment because it had "typo" issues. This is the new and improved version.
@Gene, I am very confortable with your comments. I appreciate them, brother.
What makes me laugh out loud is the hypocrisy of some who "judge" others for "judging." I enjoy pointing out irony, but in some people's minds that amounts to "judging" the "judgers" who are busy "judging" others. As a programmer, recursion is easy to spot.
"Since you classify me as "One Law", am I to take it that you find me harmful to the body, full of rotten fruit, and that you believe I "villianize" Christianity? If so, please let me know what I've said or done to lead you to this conclusion."
James, please note that in my last comments I specifically spoke of theologies/ideologies/movements that have been expressed to me by One-Law proponents or those found in various OL materials written by OL leaders and bloggers. I did not see a need to point out specific individuals or their individual beliefs and practices (which may vary and may not necessarily tow any "official" line or lines). I therefore didn't point a finger at you or anyone else in particular.
"What makes me laugh out loud is the hypocrisy of some who "judge" others for "judging."
Rick, I suppose you would spot some "recursions" and even irony of judging the judges in various statements made by Yeshua as well, but I doubt you would laugh.
Gene, you should have been a lawyer (and for all I know, you are). While you managed to say that you didn't identify any specific individual, including me, you also managed to avoid saying that over-generalizing isn't the best way to go when trying to get your point across.
James
I’m really having difficulty understanding where you are finding a problem regarding the two choices you give at the beginning of your article.
You are already part of a fellowship in which you have a very active role with considerable responsibility.
What difference does it make whether you and that fellowship fit into (or are accepted by) a wider MJ community or whether it fits into or can accept the ways of a traditional gentile church?
Are you looking to be involved in a different fellowship and can’t find any that are a perfect fit for you?
Actually, I'm trying to show my internal decision making process to some of the people reading this blog who believe that as a Gentile, I have somewhat limited worship options (my current congregation not being an available option in their minds). I wrote a later blog ("What's in a Name") that clarifies my position.
Keep in mind that the purpose of the entire body of articles on this blog is for me to re-evaluate my assumptions about my current form of worship, my relationship with believing Jews and Gentiles, and my relationship with God. I suppose it's a hard thing to articulate since I don't find many people taking such a journey.
Part of what I said in the subsequent blog is that I'm not going to turn myself into a spiritual and emotional pretzel just because people from other faith perspectives disagree with my beliefs or my worship practices. I'm not in any danger of walking away from my faith, but I wouldn't be honest if I didn't take a good, hard look at everything I'm doing...my traditions and my worship practice, and ask myself if this is what God wants me to do to honor him.
Sometimes that means I feel less sure of myself...but ultimately, I want to experience more sureness in God. I think that's part of humility...not always thinking you have the right answers and being willing to ask God to help you straighten out anything that needs work. As it's been said...pull the two by four out of your own eye before working on the splinter in your brother's eye.
Post a Comment