What is my complaint? Well, it is that with all that is wrong in the world, with all that God wants us to do, be, and know, when I speak to groups of people I don’t waste any of that precious time deconstructing others in order to build myself up.
Derek Leman
Is Tim Hegg Serious?
By “Supersessionism”, he means replacement theology, and thus, gentiles who keep Torah are practicing replacement theology.
I interpret this statement as, “One Law and Two House Messianics are replacement theologians.”
Fine blog reader, am I misinterpreting this statement?
I feel like I’m the last of the hold-outs. Friends and family have been telling me to get out of Dodge and distance myself from FFOZ over Torah and the divinity of Yeshua, but I’ve held out. I’ve have been a staunch ally of FFOZ for 6+ years. I’ve stood up for them on the web, rebuked One Law folks for wishing their financial ruin, attended their conferences, promoted their materials, heck, even stumped for them at my local congregation.
Hearing Boaz call me a replacement theologian and an enemy of Israel freaking hurts.
Judah Gabriel Himango
Boaz Michael on Messianics
Introduction
Both Derek and Judah apparently became "birds of a feather" last week in using their personal feelings to respond to the ideas, philosophies, and statements of Tim Hegg and Boaz Michael. Unfortunately, we've seen the "fruit" of these two blog posts and let's just say I wouldn't want to put such fruit on my breakfast cereal this morning. I'd put a spoonful into my mouth and get my head blown off.
In my previous blog post I said I'd try to present my take on this whole "supersessionism" matter, even if it caused another round of "he said" and "she said" in our one small corner of the small "Messianic movement" (I imagine the majority of disciples in Yeshua [Jesus] are getting on with the business of feeding the poor and visiting the sick). Anyway.
Definitions
First, a basic definition:
Supersessionism (also called fulfillment theology or replacement theology) is a Christian interpretation of New Testament claims, viewing God's relationship with Christians as being either the "replacement" or "fulfillment" or "completion" of the promise made to the Jews (or Israelites) and Jewish Proselytes. Biblical expressions of God's relationships with people are known as covenants, so the contentious element of supersessionism is the idea that the New Covenant with the Christians and the Christian Church replaces, fulfills or completes the Mosaic Covenant (or Torah) with the Israelites and B'nei Noah. A major question in supersessionism is how or to what degree are the ethics of the Mosaic Covenant displaced or even completely abrogated by the New Covenant.You may be asking what the above definition taken from Wikipedia (yes, I know..not really reliable, but all I'm looking for is very basic information) has to do with the One Law and Two-House branches of the "Messianic movement". After all, it specifically names the "Christian church". Be patient. I'm getting there.
Next, we need to understand the reaction of Judaism, any Judaism, to supersessionism as taken from the same source:
From a Jewish perspective, however, the Torah was given to the Jewish people as an eternal covenant (for example Exo 31:16-17, Exo 12:14-15) and will never be replaced or added to (for example Deut 4:2, 13:1), and hence Judaism rejects supersessionism as contrary to the Hebrew Bible at best (see also Antinomianism) and antisemitic at worst. For Judaism and other critics, supersessionism is a theology of replacement, which substitutes the Christian church, consisting of Christians, for the Jewish and B'nei Noah people. Modern Jews are offended by the traditional Christian belief in supersessionism, and some historians see supersessionism as one source of anti-semitism in western culture.So now we see why there is so much emotion, not only from many Jews who view supersessionism as offensive and even a threat, but from any group who has allied with Messianic Judaism and yet has been accused by some Messianic Jewish groups of being guilty of supersessionism. Hence the "blood bath" in the Messianic blogosphere over the past week.
Who's Who
To recap, One Law groups (this is an abridged definition and I'm sure people will chime in and correct any errors I may make) is the belief that both Jews and "grafted in Gentiles" (Romans 11) are specifically "obligated" (as opposed to allowed or permitted) to obey all of the 613 commandments (of which, Judaism believes only about 200 can be obeyed outside of Israel in the 21st Century). In this sense, both Gentiles in the "Messianic movement" and Jews everywhere (but particularly in the Messianic movement) are identical in obligations, responsibilities, and behaviors as a result of the Gentiles being grafted in and being fellow heirs (Ephesians 3:6). Why would Jews in Messianic Judaism see this as a form of supersessionism since One Law proponents don't seek to kick the Jews out of the club, but to become their spiritual and behavioral brothers and sisters, doing all that Jews do and believing all that Jews believe? Ponder that question and we'll come back to it.
Two-House (and again, this is a very abbreviated definition) theorists believe that any Gentile Christian who is attracted to Judaism and to Torah obedience must actually be a descendent of Jews from one of the ten "lost tribes" of Israel. In effect, these people are not Gentiles at all, but rather Jewish. Since they are Jewish, by definition, they are obligated to the full and complete 613 commandments (or roughly the 200 I mentioned before) as well as (I assume the following, but I could be wrong) to all of the Oral Law and halacka that applies to more "obvious" Jewish people. How can Two-House be seen as supersessionist since, from their point of view, they are Jewish (albeit Messianic and having lived all their lives as non-Jews up to a certain point) and only seek to rejoin their Jewish brothers and sisters in worship of the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus)?
I must admit that trying to understand the traditional Messianic Jewish point of view on these groups was a challenge for me for quite some time. After all, I come from a One Law tradition and I certainly didn't see how I was trying to replace the Jews. Several months ago, Derek accused me of being supersessionist and I took offense to his comments (though I didn't call him out personally on the Messianic blogosphere and after calling him a "racist" publicly, I emailed him to apologize...I still think he could have handled the situation better, though but after all, he's only human). I didn't see myself as trying to injure or replace anyone, but since the perception that I was guilty of such behavior had been presented, I tried to find out where that perception was coming from. After all, I know I'm not perfect. I've been wrong before (Gosh, does anyone in the blogosphere actually admit to that? I must be out of my mind). What was I missing?
It wasn't until this week that I began to comprehend how Messianic Judaism could arrive at such a conclusion. After all, no one ever just explains why they have their beliefs on the Internet, they just express upset or offense, sometimes to the point of the "wheels falling off the cart", so to speak. Oh well.
It has to do largely with roles as opposed to behaviors as I understand it. This requires more than a little theological slight of hand or legerdemain to comprehend.
The Perceived Problem
If One Law groups aren't trying to replace Jews, what are they doing? They are joining them at an absolutely equal level to Jews in every aspect of religious and personal life, based on their understanding and their theology. What's wrong with that? It adds to the number of Jews worldwide, doesn't it? Well, no...since these are still Gentile (for the most part) "Christians" who are obeying or attempting to obey all of the Torah commandments as an obligation identical to their Jewish counterparts. The issue is rather subtle if you're not sensitive to it, but if you are sensitive to it, the light of realization must glare like a spotlight in your eyes. If you're Jewish by birth, ethnicity, faith, and tradition, what must it be like to see a large group of non-Jews attempting to emulate your every action and lifestyle and saying "I am exactly like you in every respect as a spiritual Jew and obligated to the Torah in exactly the same way as you are"?
I don't have a lived Jewish experience, so I'm having a hard time connecting to the emotionalism of the event, but (again, from the MJ viewpoint) it must be like watching Judaism being "diluted" in some sense. It must be like watching two different wines, a white wine and a red wine, being mixed together, which at least confuses if not obliterates the meaning and uniqueness of both wines.
I apologize if that's a bad analogy, but as I said before, I'm not really equipped to feel the emotionalism of this situation. That's just what it looks like when I read the various blogs on the topic.
Is that supersessionism? Not by strict definition, no. However, it appears to be perceived as a rather odd type of supersessionism in that it is seen as having a detrimental effect on "Jewish identity" within (and probably outside) of the Messianic movement. Nobody is replaced but an "exterior group" is seen as trying to plunge into the Jewish end of the swimming pool and say, "we're just as Jewish as you are, so we have the right to be in your water, too."
Now, the sixty-four thousand dollar question. Is their intent?
That is, do One Law groups, in part or on a whole deliberately intend, by their actions and theology, to set out and damage the Jews in the Messianic movement or Jews in general?
I don't have access to each mind in the One Law movement so I don't have an absolute answer, but based on my own experiences, I'd have to say "no". I think this is the source of the outrage and pain we've been experiencing from fellows like Judah and Dan when they are told that they are supersessionist. They don't feel supersessionist and they don't intend to be supersessionist (and since Dan is Jewish and Judah has a Jewish father, can they really "replace" what they already are?). It's hard to see how someone who says "I want to be just like you" actually hates you. I think part of the problem though, is that some One Law folks want to redefine what "Jewish" is and disregard (or disrespect) how Jewish people define themselves.
Well, wait a minute.
How do we know that any of the people in the Two-House movement have Jewish ancestors? We don't. To the best of my understanding, the only way we "know" Two-House people are Jewish is because they have an "inborn" attraction to Judaism and the Torah.
In my previous blog post, I quoted Aaron ("Jewzilla") as saying it's typical in Judaism to attribute the motivations of a Gentile who wants to convert to being a Jew as having a "Jewish soul". There's no objective way to prove such a thing, but to the degree that the person is sincere about converting, it's a convenient explanation, though unprovable by any means. So is the understanding of the Two-House movement that their members are "Jews" from the lost tribes.
From the Messianic Jewish (and other Jewish) point of view then, while Two-House people aren't seeking to replace "born Jews" but rather add to them, it's somewhat similar to the One Law situation. A group of (apparently) Gentiles are not just saying "I'm just like you because I was grafted in" but rather "I'm your long lost cousin from Schenectady come to rejoin the family."
At the very least, from a Jewish point of view, it must seem strange and, if in the Jewish mindset, such philosophies and behaviors are labeled as "supersessionist", then automatic emotional responses are triggered along with insult, offense and outrage.
So here you have three groups who, by expressing their points of view about each other are offended, insulted, and outraged...and yet who all claim to be brothers and sisters in the Messiah. Could that be considered ironic?
The Result
What a mess.
No, I don't expect anyone in the Messianic blogosphere to understand what I'm saying, but I think it needs to be said. We've created this mess and in some way, we've all contributed to it. It's not even so much what we say or our particular opinions and differing theologies, but it's "how" we deal with our emotions and act out in response.
Both Derek and Judah (representing each end of the continuum of "I feel insulted") could have handled their emotions and their responses better. On the surface, Derek "seems" the more dispassionate of the two, but I suspect this is an illusion produced by good editing of his blog post before mashing on the "publish" button.
Both men (and the rest of us, including me) could have handled this better. Both men could have prayed, read the Bible, and consulted with wise and dispassionate counsel (consulting someone experiencing just as much outrage as you doesn't count) before deciding to craft a response (or deciding not to). However, both men, and the rest of us, are just like all other men. Or as an instructor of mine was fond of saying, "Everyone is unique, but no one is special." We may all seem reasonable until someone pushes our hot topic button, and then off we go.
But what's done is done. You can't unring a bell.
I'm not saying we all are supposed to agree with each other and I guess we don't even have to like each other, but we are all (as much as we hate to admit it) in the same lifeboat together, adrift in a stormy sea that only the Messiah can calm (Mark 4:35-40). If the Messiah were to read all of our blogs, including this one, I imagine his response would be like this:
He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.Do we really think that when the Messiah returns, he's going to put up with our foolishness for even two seconds? Have you tried to imagine his response? Do you think he'll take your side (whatever side that may be) and "nail" the other guy?
He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”
They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!” -Mark 4:39-41
Or do we'll all get a rebuke and a chiding for our lack of faith?
The road is long and often, we travel in the dark, ignoring the light of the world. Look for the lamp who lights your path or you may become lost in the dark forever.
"A Jew never gives up. We're here to bring Mashiach, we will settle for nothing less." -Harav Yitzchak Ginsburgh
29 comments:
James:
You state in this post that I did someone wrong (Hegg? the world in general? One Law people?) and that I should have prayed, read the Bible, and received wise counsel before writing "Is Tim Hegg Serious?".
Can you specifically tell the world the nature of my wronging someone? How did I wrong someone exactly?
If I did, which I doubt, then how is your commentary on my writing excused from the same principle?
Not offended. I just want clarification since you have indicted me.
Further, you say that I am likely emotionally hurt and insulted but managed through good editing to keep this out of my posting. Hmm, I don't think so at all.
My post was about Hegg wronging someone else, not me. My post was an indictment of Hegg's leadership methodology and his use of innuendo to gain followers.
I stand by what I wrote, but I am always open for someone to show me wrong. And I am quick to admit wrong when I am shown.
Derek Leman
James, first of all - you are a great writer. If I ever need an editor, I know who to go to.
Second, you've come really close to grasping the supersessionism of One Law and Two House theologies, but are not quite there yet. In my blog post I've tried to explain it by comparing it directly to the age-old standard Christian supersessionism. It did ring a bell for many people who read the post, but I am sure it needs to be explained even more thoroughly.
1.) One Law supersessionism is really no different than Christianity's supersessionism in as much as both claim that that there are two Israels - One Physical (Jews) and one Spiritual (all believers, Jews and Gentiles).
2.) With that in mind, supersessionist Christianity doesn't claim it replaces the real Israel of the Jewish people either (just as One Law denies such an accusation). Instead supersessionist Christianity believes that it builds up on historic Israel and in fact a continuation of it, but in a more glorified and spiritualized inclusive universal form. Furthermore, both supersessionist Christianity and One Law hold that Jews who are believers are still part of the "Spiritual Israel" (The Church), but BOTH hold that all practical distinctions between Jews and Gentiles are dissolved. Notice that even the hardest core Replacement Theology does not seek to completely get rid of the Jewish people - it simply absorbs them into "Israel of G-d".
The difference between the two theologies I am comparing here, however, is that the One-Law theology claims to uphold Torah (while usually but not always greatly redefining it to rid itself of "rabbinics") where as supersessionist Christianity, depending on the stream, either also reinterprets Torah to remove it from Jewish context (but still holds it as valid, especially the Ten Commandments) or does away with it by replacing it with the "Law of Christ".
3.) It's possible to be Jewish (or sincerely believe and claim that you are, as the case for many One Law / Two House messianics) and be supersessionist. There were and are plenty of Hebrew Christians who held/hold mainstream Christian beliefs regarding Israel (with all that entailed).
I had a feeling this one would attract a lot of attention.
My point is that you didn't have to say anything at all. Tim Hegg will do what Tim Hegg does, regardless of what anyone else says or does. By calling Tim out, so to speak (though you didn't do so literally), you perpetuated the MJ vs OL conflict which has cascaded into Judah's Boaz Michael blog and so forth.
I find it interesting to note that both you and Judah have gone out of your way to say that you had the right to make your blog posts and express your opinions. That seems to be the primary response to criticism.
I'm not saying you didn't have the right. We live in a world of "free speech rights" and the blogosphere gives anyone with Internet access the ability to express our opinions.
Yes, you had the right. But was it really necessary? Look at the result. No one has clean hands.
Thanks for the complement, Gene. To reduce down my very long post, let ask you this. Do you honestly think for one second that Judah or anyone like him really wants or intends to harm Jews in Messianic Judaism? Is he really an "enemy of Israel?"
Or is he someone that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, sincerely is trying to join with Israel. From your point of view, it is as you've explained it, but you perspective doesn't mean that's how Judah and many others feel or intend.
By the way Derek and Gene, I appreciate your measured and restrained responses. I fully expected to be totally flamed by 100% of the responders as a result of this post.
Of course, the day is young.
James:
I hope the results of my post will include people who listen to Hegg's rhetoric realizing their error and moving on to better pastures.
Perhaps I am unaware of some harm my post has done. Have I missed some comments somewhere or some hurt that I have caused? Who have I hurt?
Hegg was and is doing harm. I called him out. Silence is enablement. I do not wish to enable Hegg. I wish to see him reform and do good with his knowledge and skills.
Nor do I wish to leave his public comments unchallenged. But, again, who have I hurt by writing criticism of Hegg? And how is criticism of the public statements of public figures unethical? What line of decency did I cross?
Derek Leman
"Do you honestly think for one second that Judah or anyone like him really wants or intends to harm Jews in Messianic Judaism? Is he really an "enemy of Israel?""
Of course not, and neither does supersessionist Christianity view itself as intending to harm Jews or as enemy of Israel. Ask any hard core superssessionist if he will accept such a charge - I guarantee that they will deny it most vehemently. That's why I targeted the theologies and movements in my "expose" - I didn't target Judah or any OL/TW member personally. On the other hand I believe that teachers like Hegg need to be confronted. Believers these teachers influence need to be made aware about the true background and impact of these theologies. I am sure you know how the saying that ends with "...paved with good intentions" begins. I don't wish people like Judah any harm, that's for sure - I do think they sincerely believe what they believe. It doesn't mean they should not stop believing these things at some point.
Derek, it is possible to craft what may seem like a reasonable blog post and still "start something", even without any intent to do so (which is part of what I was trying to say in this blog).
Those people who are attached to Tim Hegg's teachings are going to remain attached, regardless what you say because they see you and the portion of MJ you represent as opposed to their (One Law) position. As far as who could be hurt, the majority of those who read our blogs never comment (just look at your visitor stats). We can't possibly calculate what impact we may be having on people who will never talk to us.
If it were possible or reasonable for us to consider, not only our immediate audience, but our "extended audience" when we craft a missive, what would we say differently? There are things that, in retrospect, I would change about what I've said and done if I could, even though I had the right to say them and even though I had no intention to injure anyone.
While your intent may have been to educate on an errant teacher in the community, if you connect your post to the comments section of the blog and then the response on Judah's (and obviously, you have control over neither), there is a chain of events that is resulting in damage.
I don't expect you to see my view point, but if we stuck to the issues and left personalities out of it (like politics is so poor at doing), we might do much better than we are doing right now.
The vast majority of your blogs are on interesting and informative topics based on your scholarship. This is your strength in the Messianic blogsphere. If you had not posted what you did, intent or not, the result over the past week would have been quite different.
That said, hindsight is 20-20 and you can't unring a bell. Here we are. Now where do we go?
"If you had not posted what you did, intent or not, the result over the past week would have been quite different."
James, I have to defend Derek on this one. It's OK to confront a harmful theology or a teacher who is teaching something harmful - Paul did this. Furthermore, MANY people have given up OL/TW as the result of clear teaching on this subject (from FFOZ and others). Some will never be convinced, but that doesn't mean that we should remain silent.
Guys, guys, guys.
This is like watching two L.A. street gangs go at it...not so much the behavior but the dynamics.
Each side feels they are the one that's been wronged. Each side feels justified in avenging said-wrongs. I don't remember this being how the Bible teaches us to deal with conflicts within the community of 'faith'. I won't bother quoting scripture to you because you all know which ones I'm talking about.
Speaking of the Bible, can any of you tell me what the Word of God says about how we're supposed to deal with these conflicts?
"Speaking of the Bible, can any of you tell me what the Word of God says about how we're supposed to deal with these conflicts?"
Of course. Is cases of personal sin or personal offense, one goes to confront a person directly. When it's a public sin or otherwise public act that harms a community, one confronts publicly. Both examples are clearly seen in scripture.
Some will never be convinced, but that doesn't mean that we should remain silent.
But it means I can remain silent. I'm going through a significant transformation regarding faith and what it's all supposed to mean, at least as far as "little ol' me' is concerned. I've tried to draw attention to the "big picture" issues such as how Yeshua would view all this and how God intends for us to behave, but that's been no good.
I've run out of words. Well, not really. There's plenty more I could say and on some level I "enjoy" crafting ways to say it, but what's the point. I have no ability to reach anyone and I'm only one small voice in a room full of shouting people.
I'm going to talk to God now. He's the only One who understands what a tragedy it is when brother goes against brother.
Please everyone, feel free to continue to comment. I'll be back later to read them. After that, I don't know yet.
The comments of these two self-righteous Derek and Gene speak for itself. Their self-serving elitism is appaling.
I too stand by what I wrote in my blog here: http://fllowheirs.blogspot.com/
James:
I hear your objection and will assimilate it into my thinking about whether or not I will publicly criticize people who might be deemed "brothers" in the future. I should mention that Tim Hegg and I have no personal relationship. Neither do I consider him to be a part of my movement any more than some other religious figure I might criticize (I hope you won't take me to task if I ever write a post poking fun at or denouncing Benny Hinn!).
Public accountability is one of the responsibilities those who make public statements and exert public leadership face. Bloggers in many arenas have held the feet of public figures to the fire.
And, I've had many emails in the last week or so asking for advice about getting a better handle on the Jew-gentile relationship to Torah. People want to hear other points of view and many people change their mind and get out of harmful movements because of things like blogs. Yes, it can happen.
And I have made no secret of my beliefs about better ways non-Jews can take on some aspects of Torah without assuming a false Jewish identity. That is for their own health, for the good of God's Abrahamic covenant, and for a better community of Yeshua.
Derek Leman
>> "I fully expected to be totally flamed by 100% of the responders as a result of this post. Of course, the day is young."
Hahaha. Now you've jinxed it.
I am one of the "lurkers" who is often hurt by the comments of Derek and Gene. I do not post comments because I am merely a homeschooling housewife who is not by any means a scholar or gifted with words. Sorry Derek but your words are often so arrogant, do you think you are the only one with the corner on truth? I was actually in tears many times this week with the comments of Boaz, Derek and Gene. To say I practice replacement theology, thinking I am a friend yet may really be an enemy, hurt. I have brought my children up to love and respect Israel. We support MANY Jewish organizations financially. We are Gentiles and have no desire to become Jewish. I love my British heritage. That is who I am and who G-d made me to be. And yet I love Torah and I seek to live my life by its laws.
I thank those who champion the case for us Gentiles. DI and BE as far as I have experienced only brings hurt and confusion. It is the age old problem of "what do we do with the gentiles?" We are in the family, but not allowed to come inside the house. MJ wants us only if we come along to support. Thats the message I get.
And where is Yeshua in all of this?? The One who through His work, unites us all??
Allyson
@Allyson, you are not alone. I receive emails from people like you all of the time. The so-called "identity crisis" in Messianic Judaism began (renewed) when some folks (that Judaism rejects as Jews themselves), resolved their own identity crisis with theological machinations.
Our identity is found in Messiah. He made us all one family. No matter what Boaz, Gene, Derek, Stuart, et al say. I know, it is tough sometimes having brothers that act like jerks < grin >.
"I was actually in tears many times this week with the comments of Boaz, Derek and Gene."
Allyson, I, for one, am sorry that anything I may have said has hurt you. None of my comments were addressed to anyone personally, and certainly not to you. They were certainly not intended to cause pain, but rather a change of course. What's more, I went out of my way to say on my blog that NOT ALL OL/TH adherents support a version of supersessionist theology that I believe is inherent in those movements. It's obvious to me that you do not, so you should definitely not think of yourself.
"DI and BE as far as I have experienced only brings hurt and confusion."
Allyson, why after all you said about feeling hurt did you feel free to add this line in? Don't you think it too would be taken personally by those who uphold DI and BE and may equally lead to hurt and offense?
Allyson,
Watch your pockets, Gene is about to put his hands in there......
"Allyson, Watch your pockets, Gene is about to put his hands in there......"
Dan, and I say this with all sincerity: you need some serious counseling.
Not by you my friend, not by you....
I am one of the "lurkers" who is often hurt by the comments of Derek and Gene. I do not post comments because I am merely a homeschooling housewife who is not by any means a scholar or gifted with words. Sorry Derek but your words are often so arrogant, do you think you are the only one with the corner on truth? I was actually in tears many times this week with the comments of Boaz, Derek and Gene.
I'm sorry you were hurt Allison and for any part I may have played in the process. I'm finding it difficult to "keep my balance" in the midst of all the turmoil myself. There has always been "dynamic tension" between people who represent different viewpoints in the Messianic movement, but it seems to have gotten particularly intense this past week.
Like any other "religious group", our disagreements and arguments can take an alarming tone and the reason there are so many different and conflicting flavors of Christianity and Judaism (and many other religious groups) is because of human nature, not the desires of God.
I can only encourage you to rise above the arguments and to remember that we are ultimately responsible to the Jewish Messiah and the God of Abraham, not any one person, religious leader, or philosophy. I am attempting to do the same thing and am finding it a difficult task.
At this point, I'm tempted to try and insert some perspective into how we are viewing different individuals who have been named, but having done that already, perhaps it would be better if I left well enough alone.
James, thank you for this blog and making this search of yours for "light", public. I read your blog and I feel encouraged and soothed by both the content, and your tone (sorry, guys...but I'm a girl, so you'll have to pardon the "warm fuzzy" stuff that just crept in...besides, these comment sections are short on warm fuzzies).
BUT THEN, I read the comment section.
Wow.
I am amazed at how monotone this crowd can be.
Seriously...? It ALWAYS is the SAME argument...always. OL ... BE...DI...supersessionism, blah, blah...and then the weird venom and tension between a couple people ... Geesh.
Don't get me wrong--I don't shirk from a good debate--but don't you guys get tired of this same argument? You are not changing each others' minds...and you keep trying over and over? Explain this to me? Is there wisdom in such things? Could a different tactic be employed? (No ideas here, just wondering...)
As a former therapist, I've done a good amount of marital counseling, and these posts in the comment section start to remind me of some pretty long sessions with couples where both side was convinced of the rightness of their view--"to heck with the relationship, there is TRUTH here that needs to be recognized!" Sad.
And by the way, just because you may be "right" about something, doesn't mean that airing it in such a forum won't hurt someone. This whole format where you don't know who is reading what you are putting out there, should cause you to tremble...if only for the reason that a couple gals named Allison have shed tears over the wounds that brothers are inflicting upon each other in the name of "truth". But I suppose this is where I hear about "rights" and "watching doctrine closely" and the importance of "sound teaching", etc...sigh. Or that I'm such a thin skinned, gentile woman with a greek mindset that can't take a good argument without getting my feelings hurt. Or maybe I'm just being a girl. Bleh. Whatever--it just doesn't seem right, gentlemen...even if you are right.
It would have been really refreshing if the comments section of this post by our dear friend James was full of responses like "hmmm, I'll think on that" or "good points, James". Period. Weird concept, huh?
But maybe I am all wrong, and should have just sent James a private note of encouragement, prayed for the conflict and those nameless and unnumbered lurkers who are hurt or confused...and not attempted to throw my two-cents in. Sigh.
May love, joy and peace reign, gentlemen. And hang in there, Allyson. :)
~The other Allison~
You are a very kind and patient man James.
Believe me, Allison, these discussions HAVE been far from fruitless. I have witnessed many folks who just over the past few years have acquired a much healthier perspective regarding their relationship to G-d, to Messiah and to Israel and Jewish people, leaving well behind former ill informed teachings that have served to isolate them from the larger community of faith.
Granted, some of the last holdouts, especially those who have appointed themselves teachers and feed of a loyal following, may never change - but it's precisely they who must be challenged in a public forum.
I welcome you to visit my blog on a regular basis and you will see that in none of my posts do I make personal attacks on individuals. Instead, I challenge theologies, ideas and motives. I keep things quite civil - so far, most of my readers who have commented seem to be Gentiles (not surprising, since one of the stated goals of my blog is reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles).
Allison,
Ask the bleeding heart Gene if you would be allowed to read from theTorah in his congregation, then you will see the real him. All he is doing on these blogs is paying lip service. The words are sweet, but the actions are vicious.
I think I got my Allisons/Allysons confused. Sorry, but thank you both for commenting. Warm fuzzies are welcome here.
Thanks Dr Schiffman. Good thing no one can see the steam shooting out my ears on my end of the "Interwebs". ;-)
Allison, I was also a family therapist with 15 years post-graduate clinical experience before I made a career change. I can understand what you mean and sometimes liken some of these conversations to "divorce court".
Had the kids and grandson over for dinner (wife is out of town because her sister is in the hospital). It was chaos but it was fun. Time to wind down and to read a book for awhile.
Blessings.
James,
this was a great post.
I can imagine your pain through this entire process (I've had my own).
Thanks for working through this in a fairly level headed way.
We may not agree on everything, but for you to chronicle your journey in such detail is of much value to the movement.
We may not agree on everything, but for you to chronicle your journey in such detail is of much value to the movement.
Thanks for the complement. I'm sure that many of us won't agree on everything. I'd be surprised if we did. My hope is that we can continue a dialogue where we can share our differences and maintain connections so that, when the Messiah returns, he finds an intact body of Messiah and not just a bunch of scattered parts.
Blessings.
"My hope is that we can continue a dialogue where we can share our differences"
mine too. Us minus differences = milquetoast, vanilla and bland.
Thanks for being an example of a willingness to dialogue reasonably.
Post a Comment