The Beautiful Girl and Her Very Long List

In every relationship, there's give and take...at least in every healthy relationship. Although for a relationship to succeed over the long term, there must be some overlap of goals, priorities, and interests, each person still remains an individual. Not all of our personality traits and behaviors are going to be acceptable to the other, hence the need for each party to bend a little. It is unreasonable for one person to expect the other to do all the bending. Either the person doing all the bending is a masochist who completely subverts all of his wants and needs for the other, or the relationship unravels pretty quickly.

Let me illustrate.

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

Let's say you are a young, single guy. You aren't too handsome, but you aren't really ugly, either. You don't have a lot of money, but you work hard and are honest. You aren't perfect, but you recognize that fact and you are striving to be better every day.

Then you meet a girl. She's beautiful. She's smart. You're not sure that a relationship will work out between you, but you'd like to at least try a first date and see where it goes.

You finally get up the nerve to introduce yourself and ask her out. Her response is immediate. She hands you a list.

You read the list and it's a set of requirements. The first part of the list describes all of your flaws, even ones you didn't know you had or personal qualities you didn't even know were flaws. The list details the types of changes you have to make to your appearence, your clothing, your grooming, your speech, your eating habits, and everything else about you before she will consent to even a first date.

But there's more.

The rest of the list has to do with your family and friends. They have to change, too and in exactly the same way as you are expected to change. The girl can't have you in association with anyone who doesn't comply to the requirements of the list and you must convince your family and friends to make all of these changes, because this is what the girl needs before she will consent to go out on even one date with you.

There are three possible responses:

Response 1.

She's wonderful. Although the list is challenging, you figure she's worth it. You immediately set out to make the changes in yourself. It requires some effort and an outlay of cash to buy the right clothes, get the right hair cut, change your diet, join a gym, hire a speech tutor, but you make significant strides in accomplishing your goals.

Now for the hard part; your family and friends.

You approach them and explain that you need them to change because you can't date this girl unless they do. You say that, if the relationship works, she'll be an amazing person for them to have as a friend, and they won't regret making the changes in their lives for her sake (and yours).

A few of them, because they love you, say they'd be willing to bend in certain areas but they aren't sure that they want to change themselves so completely, at least not all at once. They ask for some time to consider the items on the list. Of course, your more distant relatives and friends take one look at the list and say it's pretty nerve-y for the girl to have such high expections out of a guy and his family and friends without even dating the guy first. They say that there's no way they're changing anything about themselves because they like themselves just the way they are.

You go back to the girl and ask for more time. You explain the difficulties you've encountered and point out how you have made the vast majority of the changes she's requested. You ask if perhaps you can go on that first date and you'll promise to continue to work with your family and friends to help them see how beneficial making the changes in their lives will be in order to have a relationship with you.

Unfortunately, she's very firm in her requirements and all of the items on the list must be completed. She says that her mother and grandmother put up with guys just like you for a long time and now that she's here, she's going to change all of that. If any guy wants to date her, it has to be completely on her terms or there will be no relationship.

You go back to your family and friends, but they just don't see your point of view and feel the girl is being unreasonable in being so absolute with her requirements for the sake of even one single date. It's not as if you are about to get married or even dating steadily. Then there'd be an expectation that you'd have to do some changing...but then, so would she.

You realize that, no matter how much you want to pursue a relationship with her, starting with a single date, the amount of effort you'd have to generate to change your entire life, including the lives of each and every person you associate with, would be insurmountable. You meet her one last time, sadly return the list, and say you hope she finds the guy she's looking for someday.

You now realize that you really have changed and no longer fit in with your family and friends. Yet you know your own changes will never be enough and you have no future with the girl and her list. No longer having a sense of belonging, you start looking for another place to live and wonder where you'll end up. You still feel like you are someone who could be loved someday, but can't imagine who would have you now.

Response 2.

She's crazy. You take one look at all the items on the list and realize this girl is way too high maintenance. You know you're not perfect and indeed, are far from it, but this is only a first date. It's not like you've asked her to marry you or anything. Even if you were willing to make all these changes for the sake of a single date, it's completely nuts to expect your family and friends to suddenly morph into a different thing, just to see if a relationship is possible. Sure, if there was more of a commitment and if she were willing to bend a little and be patient, it might be different, but if she insists that all of the changes must occur first, there's no way.

You give her back her list, wish her a lot of luck, and return to your regularly scheduled life.

Response 3.

She's looking for a completely different guy. You read the list and realize that it points to how incredibly awful you are as a person, how awful your friends are, and how awful your family is. The girl seems so sure of how perfect she is, how beautiful she is, and you realize you are completely unworthy of her. Unlike a fairy tale, you are a frog who never turns into a prince. You sadly give the list back to the girl, thank her for her time, and walk away.

Yes, these examples are extreme and I'm sure a lot of people out there are going to cry "foul", but these scenarios are meant to illustrate the position, at least as I've been reading it, of certain aspects of Messianic Judaism in relation to both the Christian church and those of us Gentiles who entered into "the movement" originally believing that "One Law" was the appropriate link between believing Jews and Gentiles. Even if someone like me begins to shift perspective and starts making changes, we're also responsible for trying to change our entire world and all of the people in it...at least in the congregation where we attend, before we can even go on a "first date". The girl, for her part, isn't required to do a thing except present the list.

As I've already outlined in an earlier blog post, making those changes isn't easy and it won't be quick. I've tried to explain that a more Hillel-like approach would be beneficial in the long run, but it seems like I keep getting hit with Shammai's measuring rod.

Even if Messianic Judaism is willing to throw all One Law congregations and all One Law associated people under a bus, consider the church, which at least MJ says it wants a relationship with. Are you going to get much of a different response from many Christian churches than the ones I've described?

Read the story of Hillel, Shammai, and the three converts again and ask yourselves which one of the great sages achieved the desired goal. If you conclude it was Shammai, then you'll not only chase away any of the people currently worshiping at One Law congregations who would otherwise have been able to make the changes and been worthy companions and allies, but you'll alienate most Christians and churches as well.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. -Ephesians 2:14-18

I wonder if Paul knew what he was talking about and if, by some miracle of God, that peace he describes existed between the Gentiles and Jews in the "Messianic movement" of his day? I'm having trouble finding it right now.

I've come to realize that this isn't going to work. I don't fit in as a person and certainly my lifestyle doesn't fit in with the requirements of Messianic Judaism. The Messianic movement has also left me in a state to where I can't even join my wife in a Jewish synagogue because I have a "Messianic" reputation. While it's now clear that the dissonance in this situation will require my eventually leaving my current congregation and any form of worship associated with One Law, Messianic Judaism, or a Judaism of any kind, the church is no longer an option for me, either. If I had never left the church, I suppose I'd be there to this day and be happy in the comfort of numbers and legitimacy of a recognized religion. Messianic Judaism would accept or at least tolerate me because I was "in my place".

Of course, that wouldn't work, because it would deny my wife's and childrens's Judaism, and I wouldn't keep them from their heritage for anything at all...so leaving the church, for me and my family, was inevitable. For the sake of my family being Jewish, we needed to leave the church. I believe God wants my wife to experience and live out her Judaism.

So here I am.

It's time to reconsider my options, my theology, and my faith. I've been brought to a point of questioning my few remaining assumptions, which go to the core of what I'm even doing when I have the nerve to pray to the God of Abraham and the Jewish Messiah. According to the Bible, I'm supposed to be welcome in the Kingdom of God. I'm just not welcome among his people.

I'm turning it back over to God. Where does He want me to go and what does He want me to do?

For my part, I have no idea.

Fractured

James, also - I am good friends with many Gentile Christians. Just talked to a pastor friend the other day about his plans to plant a new church, and me and my wife are meeting with our close friends, a Christian couple for dinner next week. What they all have in common is that none of them have any desire to be part of a Jewish congregation (yes, they came to visit) but all of them are VERY supportive of the work G-d is doing among Jewish believers.

I would like to add that Gentiles in "Messianic Movement" should first reconcile with their Christian Gentile brothers BEFORE they take on any issues they see with lack of unity with their Jewish brothers.

-Gene Shlomovich

Gene made these rather pointed statements on my blog post Messianic Principles of Faith. For the past six months, I've been attempting to find a middle ground between Jews and non-Jews in the Messianic movement, but in one way or another, I've been told that not only don't non-Jews belong in "the movement", but that it's impossible for us to call ourselves "Messianic". The most recent round of conversations I've tried to record in what I call my Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series has continued to build on a chain of thoughts leading to a single conclusion. I'll tell you what that conclusion is by the end of this post.

Bilateral Ecclesiology Supposition

Jews in the Messianic movement who support the concept and "theology" of Bilateral Ecclesiology state, in part, that Messianic Jews and Christian Gentiles can only have "unity" (or stand along side each other, but I'm not sure that is "unity"), if each group occupies separate and distinct faith, worship, and educational communities that support their unique identities. Messianic Jews must exist in a synagogue environment consistent with the other Judaisms currently in existence, and be allowed to have alignment and community with all other Jews and with Israel as Jewish covenant members. In order to accomplish this, few, if any, non-Jews would be welcome to participate on any level within a Messianic Jewish group except in the role of occasional visitor. The only viable exception would be if a non-Jew were married to a Jew and, for the sake of the Jewish member of the Messianic group, the non-Jew spouse would be allowed to attend.

In short, Bilateral Ecclesiology states that Jews must live as Jews and Gentiles must live as Gentiles. God planned for Gentiles to develop the Christian church system as defined by the past 2,000 years of church history. Regardless of the dissonance between Jews and Christians that history creates, the church as the only Christian worship venue for non-Jews must be maintained for the sake of Jewish distinctiveness in the Messianic movement. There are no other options.

Disclaimers

Before I go on, I want to say that nothing I'm writing here means that I don't have high regard for my fellow believers in the Christian church in my local community and all over the world. In my teaching and other interactions within my current congregation, I have defended the church and traditional Christianity. Some non-Jewish "One Law" believers tend to have a chip on their collective shoulder when it comes to the church and, while no worship community is perfect and without flaws, I have attempted to dispel poor attitudes towards the church in general and to encourage fellowship.

I also want to say that I hold Gene Shlomovich in high regard and I even thought we could have a friendship as time passed. I know it looks like I'm picking on him, but he's really representing a large organizational opinion that is gathering momentum in the Messianic movement, particularly with the Jewish members who have been raised in a religious and ethnic Jewish home and who, from childhood, have self-identified as Jews (there are exceptions, but this is the general trend as I see it). While there are Jewish people in "the movement" who are more accepting of non-Jewish members, it seems clear that a significant population of Jewish people in the Messianic world are unable to tolerate the presence of non-Jews as members of their communities. Their heartfelt desire is to establish and continue fellowship with their non-Jewish counterparts but only if the non-Jews are aligned and affiliated with the Christian church. From their perspective, no relationship can possibly exist with a Christian if that Christian desires entrance into a Jewish worship venue or for any reason whatsoever, does not desire to attend a church.

Response

Now that the disclaimers are out of the way, I want to proceed to the response. This is part of why, despite the requirements of Bilateral Ecclesiology and Messianic Judaism, I cannot return nor would I be welcome in a church setting. Some of the following content was previously posted in the blog Forked.

1. Acceptance: The last time I was in a church Sunday school and said I didn't think that the Law died on the cross with Jesus, I received a rather cool (not the good kind) response. My core values include an acceptance of the Torah for Jewish believers and a benefit of Torah study for Christians. In order to be accepted in a Christian church setting, I would have to keep my mouth shut tight except for superficial, polite conversation which is going to kill most opportunities for authentic fellowship, especially if the church is supposed to be where God wants me to be.
2. Education: If I have to go through one more Kay Arthur canned, programmed, "beloved", Bible study, I'm going to puke. I design teachings so people can ask questions, even the hard ones, so that people can really participate and share their perspectives, so that people can disagree and by such debates, explore their assumptions in order to learn and grow, not just so people can agree to the "party line". I'm not saying that Christian education is poor, but there aren't a lot of opportunities to stretch and develop and, as you know, I like questioning assumptions. You cannot seriously question an assumption in Sunday school. I've tried. It doesn't go over well. Again, I'll have to shut up.
3. Ceremony: My family and I gave up Christmas and Easter long ago and we have no regrets. Even if I chose not to "celebrate" those events in my home, as part of a church, I'd be expected to participate in them in corporate worship and to at least fake being excited at the approach of the Christmas play. On a more specific note, a family my wife and I knew at our former church were recently asked to leave said-church. Reason? Like my family, they made a decision not to celebrate Christmas. The husband and wife are intelligent, reasonable people (and not religious wack jobs, as you might be assuming) who made this decision as a matter of conscience. The church chose not to honor their decision and evicted them instead.
4. Food: I keep what the local Chabad Rabbi calls "kosher-style" which amounts to following the Leviticus 11 guidelines for what is and isn't food. It's a personal conviction of mine (and I don't care if you say I don't "have" to or not, I "choose" to), so pretending I'm allergic to all pork, shellfish, and other treif products will be tough over the long haul. On top of that, when the last kid leaves our home, my wife wants to kasher our kitchen and take a more serious approach to kashrut. Since I live with my wife (and I agree with her decision, by the way), I'll also be following that approach. I don't even begin to know how to explain this in a church setting without offending just about everyone.
5. Lying: This actually encompasses all of the points I've already made because I'd have to do a considerable amount of lying to be able to operate within the parameters of what's expected in a church. Even keeping my mouth shut or forcing myself to stuff it with a ham sandwich is a form of lie. Why should I be compelled to lie in the house of God?
6. Hypocrisy and worse: The single thing I can't swallow about the Church is replacement theology. While I've been repeatedly criticized by MJ/BE proponents of supporting replacement theology, that same group says I should attend a religious organization that's almost guaranteed to practice some version of this. I've recently been told by an MJ/BE proponent, that replacement theology or supersessionalism, isn't such a big deal in the church anymore. Maybe that's true in some churches, but my experience is that it's not universally true. I'm not coming home from Sunday school and telling my wife that my teacher says I replaced her in the covenant promises of God.
7. Marriage: My wife is Jewish and even in terms of my current worship, she has to conceal certain items in our home when she has friends from shul over. My association in the "Messianic" world has tainted me as far as sharing any sort of worship with her at the Chabad synagogue. Imagine how much more difficult life would be like for her if I became a regular church attender. Adding to this, my personal "theology" if you will, has a lot of "Jewish elements". While I can never attend any of the Chabad Rabbi's classes, I really enjoy going over my wife's class material with her. It's really expanded my understanding of Judaism, and, in it's own way, my understanding of my wife and God.

There are additional issues. I know a couple (who attend a Messianic group about 25 or 30 miles away from where I live) who are intermarried. Like my family, the husband is a non-Jew and the wife is Jewish. In their case, they are both "Messianic" and in fact, her father is also a Messianic Jew (who lives in another state). Like my wife and I, they previously attended a church (a different one than my wife and I attended) and when the wife started exploring her Judaism more demonstratively (by lighting the Shabbat candles and abstaining from eating pork products), she was told to leave the church because she was "under the law". This was a very painful experience for the couple. They had many friends and strong ties with their church, but in that case, her Jewishness did not mix with their understanding of the love of the Jewish Messiah.

On a more personal level, like in my current worship venue, attending a church means I would be worshiping alone; that is to say, without my wife. We previously worshiped together in a church, a "Messianic" setting, and at the local Reform synagogue, but while I felt I "belonged" with the "Messianic" group, my wife was drawn toward the Chabad. Somewhere along the line, I'm not sure when, she gave up her faith in Yeshua and adopted a traditional Jewish viewpoint of Jesus which she currently maintains. It grieves me that we cannot worship God as a couple, but I can fully understand why she wouldn't step foot in any Messianic congregation, even one that held to the strict interpretation of Bilateral Ecclesiology.

The effect of my being "Messianic", for lack of a better term, is that I can no longer set foot in any Jewish synagogue, at least where people might know I'm "Messianic", not only because of how the Rabbi and congregation would react to me, but because it would damage my wife's relationships. Beyond my congregation there is a much larger, though loosely associated, collection of Gentile "Messianics" in my area who, for some reason or another, attend services and classes at the local synagogues, I can't take the risk of going and being recognized. My wife has gone so far as to say that, even if I were to give up the Messianic congregation, I still shouldn't attend any local Jewish gathering.

Attending a church, in spite of everything I said above, while it wouldn't spark as severe a response from the local synagogues, would still require that my wife and I worship apart. It wouldn't erase my "Messianic" associations, so not only is worshiping at a church "problematic", worshiping in the synagogue with my wife is also not an option.

But there's more.

Assume I attended a church. Sooner or later, people are going to find out I'm married and ask about my wife. I could lie and say she's in a coma and is "unavailable" to attend services with me, but I'd probably tell the truth and say she's Jewish and prefers to worship with other Jews. I don't doubt that, because she's "unsaved", someone out of sincere kindness would say they'd pray for her salvation and return to Jesus.

But she doesn't want them to pray for her and I support my wife in her pursuit of her Jewish identity and relationships. It's just a world I can never share. Kind of like the world of Messianism. How would that go over in a church?

For over ten years, I thought I'd found a "spiritual home", but now that has been put in a state of uncertainty. I have to either determine that I should stay where I am "because it's where I've been planted" and to tell the Messianic Jewish world to go take a flying leap, or, out of respect, I can leave my current congregation and exit all of the conversations in the Messianic blogosphere.

Gene suggested that I read a blog written by FFOZ founder Boaz Michael called Respect the Work that God is Doing. I did. The blog post is made up significantly of quotes from a Pastor Boaz knows who, in addition to being aligned with the goals of Messianic Judaism and not being supersessionalist, believes his work as a Pastor is in the church. I think Gene was telling me that the church isn't all that bad, some churches have goals and perspectives that generally align with Messianism, and that I am being unfair to churches by holding the attitudes and experiences I've talked about earlier in this article.

I don't have an issue with what the Pastor said on Boaz's blog. I believe that many, perhaps most, Christians are supposed to be in a church setting. I don't have a problem with anyone who feels this way. I can only say that I don't feel like I'm supposed to be in a church setting. However, that attitude usually gets me branded as a malcontent or otherwise as a person hostile to Christianity, regardless of how untrue it happens to be. Here's an example from Boaz's blog quoting the Pastor that makes a special point:

There is a story about Ghandi that says one day while he was reading the gospels he was intrigued by Jesus, So he decided to check him out. So on a Sunday he went to a Church in South Africa where he was living at the time and was stopped at the door. He was told that this church was only for white, English people and if he wanted a "black" church there was one a mile down the road. Ghandi wrote, "I would be a Christian today, if it were not for the Christians." I am beginning to feel that way about those in the Hebrew roots movement.

In essence, based on that story and particularly the Pastor's last sentence, my personal stance is interpreted as one where I am not acting as the Jewish Messiah would have me act, because I don't feel comfortable in a church setting.

Conclusion

So now what? I don't know...well, yes I do. I just don't want to admit it.

Part of me just wants to cut ties with the Messianic world, both locally with "my" congregation and with the Messianic blogosphere. While I can't comply with the desires of Messianic Judaism and return to a church setting, I will at least be one less splinter in their eye. There are some problems with this decision, however.

Right before Yom Kippur last year (2010/5771), I gave the board of directors at my congregation the opportunity to accept my resignation. Because I was "unequally yoked" and in a position of leadership and authority, I felt "compromised" relative to the Bible's directives regarding leaders in the "church". While the board understood my concerns, because we are a small congregation and resource-limited, and because I provide a significant amount of services to the congregation (teaching, blogging, website creation and management, transportation of the elderly, organization of the food drive, and so forth), they said they really wanted me to stay.

Since I, unlike many Gentile-driven Messianic groups, require that any one leader in our group, especially me, be under the authority of a larger governing body within the congregation, I accepted their decision. I stayed and continued to provide for the congregation in the places where I was needed.

I also promised to teach a class starting at the end of January and going (probably) through May. It should be (just my opinion) an interesting class and a lot of people, in and outside of our congregation are looking forward to it. I don't want to back out at the last second just because of how I feel and how others feel about me.

I didn't anticipate writing this particular blog post for another five or six months, but there seemed to be no other way to adequately respond to Gene's comments.The cat's out of the bag, now.

I want to apologize to those people who may be following this blog and, even though you don't comment, read and are supported by its content. I feel like I've let you down by even writing this post, but one of the things this blog is designed to do is to be my personal reflection and response to issues of faith and relationship. That means, I don't pull punches and I don't cut corners. I'm not here to be "politically correct" and while I've tried to be civil, polite, and respectful, I'm not going to lie. This blog isn't just a series of essays on theological topics, but also a record of my journey along the path and in search of the "light of the world".

I also want to apologize again to anyone reading this who is a Christian and attends a church. It is not my intention to show you, Jesus, or God the Father any disrespect. This missive is completely my responsibility and my expression of the thoughts and challenges I've been facing for the past six months in what I originally called fractured fellowship. As it stands, I'm not the one to build the bridge, apply the super glue, or wrap up the relationship with duct tape. As Gene previously said, I guess I have no right to even address issues of Christian/(Messianic) Jewish relationships if I have no affiliation with a church. That seems to be a condition that keeps hitting me in the face again and again.

Like I said earlier, I was hoping for a miracle to occur within the next five or six months that would somehow resolve the various levels of dissonance I'm experiencing, but I don't know if that miracle will ever occur. Doors are slamming shut all around me but despite that, I'll fulfill  and complete my current commitments. When that's done, I'll look and see if God opened even a single door for me. If there's an opening, I'll go through it and accept the consequences for everything I've done. If not, then I'll follow the exit sign and my relationship with God will become solely between the two of us.

Future Imperfect

Will I continue to blog? Probably, if for no other reason than because this blog is the most direct method I have to express the reflection of my mind, emotions, and spirit in operation.

That's the best I can do for now.

Lamb Chop

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. -John 10:14-16

Now, I did know people who kept two different flocks, for instance, a meat flock and a wool flock; but this was costly and overall impractical. Do shepherds at times put some of the same flock in different pastures? Yes, if it is a large flock and the shepherd has a few rams and some wethers, they will be separated out of the ewes until breeding season. Regardless of how the shepherd may be caring for his flock on a day to day basis, they are still one flock with one shepherd.
Justin at
The Maggid's Blog: A Daily Dose of the Good News
one flock and one shepherd

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

I read Justin's blog this morning and was encouraged. But after going through the 30 some odd comments in my own blog post Going Along with the Program throughout the day, I'm feeling my enthusiasm wane. I know we can't be expected to agree on everything, but it would be nice if we could agree on something.

I had considered writing a blog called If Bilateral Ecclesiology were a Marriage but I'm feeling a little too cynical right now, and don't think I could strike the proper tone. After all, I want Mike and Morrie to have a civil conversation, not a "knock down, drag out."

Be that as it may.

I like the shepherd, sheep, two pens, one flock metaphor Yeshua paints, but that's changed for me recently and with good reason. Not long ago on Ovadia's blog Gene posted a link to a PDF document called Shelters and Housing for Sheep and Goats. Included in the document is the following quote, which Gene used to help me understand his vision of John 10:

At a minimum, barns should have separate pens for adult males, young males, pregnant females, and young weaned offspring. If the herd is large and space is available, additional pens should be constructed for:

• Weaned male lambs/kids of the same size should be penned together and not mixed with younger, smaller animals unable to compete for feed;
• Pregnant females close to parturition should be penned separately from nursing females, young females not bred yet and adult males;
• Partitions for adult male pens should be high enough so that males cannot jump out to prevent unintended mating;
• Whereas small barns may not need an aisle between pens, particularly in large barns, a center aisle makes many management practices easer; such as sorting animals, feeding, monitoring breeding, etc. It also facilitates movement of workers in the barn.

As Justin said on his blog, which I referenced earlier:

As we know well our fathers, Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov, lived as shepherds and throughout the Scriptures the Living God uses this imagery as a means for us to understand our relationship with Him.

Yeshua would have used a metaphor that was readily understandable by his audience, which probably included a lot of shepherds and people who knew a lot of shepherds. Most of us are "city boys", so the only time we see a sheep is when we dig into a nice, hot, juicy leg of lamb, (with apologies to Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop..see below). We can't really take the Master's words completely as plain text but rather, we must understand a bit about shepherding to gather his full meaning.

Gene's commentary on the "shepherding lesson" quoted above is:

Farmers have many sheep pens on a farm for the same flock. When it’s time to lead the flock to pasture you let them all to lead them to pasture. After they return from feeding, a shepherd separates each sheep into their respective pens.

So, extending the metaphor into the realm of the Bilateral Ecclesiology conversation we've been having today, all we sheep, black and white alike; Gentile and Jewish alike, operate within one big pasture and we do have one shepherd. We all listen to his voice...but we still live in different pens based on (if we were sheep) age, size, being pregnant, and other differences. Another part of the document states that you can isolate sick animals, separate sheep by feeding requirements, control a mating schedule (intermarriage or lack thereof?), and protect nursing mothers and their kids.

OK, we're not sheep, but you get the idea of the metaphor now. For BE, the natural interpretation of this metaphor is that Jewish and non-Jewish sheep are separated into different pens by the shepherd based on their differing requirements. Actually, it's a rather elegent fit from the BE perspective. Messianic Jews and Christian Gentiles do "mix" when grazing in the pasture (I'm reminded of the old Warner Bros. cartoons of Ralph and Sam, one a predator and the other a sheep dog, punching the clock, and going at it tooth and nail between 8 and 5 except for a break for lunch, then returning to being best friends at the end of the work day), but otherwise, return to their separate pens at the end of the day.

I can't say that Yeshua didn't mean that, particularly based on the context of the verses being quoted. On the other hand, was he really being that complicated? Who knows?

Justin says, "Regardless of how the shepherd may be caring for his flock on a day to day basis, they are still one flock with one shepherd" and he brings his blog post to a close with this:

Beloved, it is getting increasing dangerous in the world, even among the saints; place your trust in Him alone, learn to hear His voice and follow Him. As the Apostle Peter wrote, "But the day of Adonai shall come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with intense heat, and the earth and the works that are in it shall be burned up." My friends, all of these books, papers, blogs and lectures that we have done will one day disappear; before they do, are you sure that your faith in Him is solid? Are you standing on the Rock, or what someone else has represented as the rock? He is the Good News! Be not afraid, all who call upon the Name of the Living God will be saved! Omein.

A voice of encouragement in an apparent wilderness.

While I do find Gene's metaphor on pens and flocks plausable, I find our conversations and debates disheartening. According to Socrates, "Wisdom begins in wonder" and I find that I'm running low on wonder lately. On the Going Along with the Program blog, Ovadia commented that "...there really aren't very many of them (Gentiles in the Messianic movement), and they're largely irrelevant outside the already-marginal, Internet-based "Messianic" world." I seriously doubt that he meant to directly call me "irrelevant" as a believer in Yeshua or as a human being, but from his point of view, I may well be irrelevant in the world of Bilateral Ecclesiology...at least as it's currently designed. Am I a sheep without a flock or even a pen?

The one thing we're missing in most of these conversations is that we mere mortals aren't the ones building pens and flocks, it's Yeshua. The words quoted from John 10:14-16 are his words and he is the good shepherd, not you or I (thankfully).

In the end, that's the only thing people like me have to hang on to, even if our individual "square peg" lives don't fit into someone else's "round hole" puzzle.

I'm not asking to barge into the white sheep pen or to threaten white sheep distinctiveness. But when we're all in the pasture together, can't we share a little lunch together? After all, the grass is just as green for me as it is for you. We all eat the same spiritual food (1 Corinthians 10:3).

Oh, regarding the image at the top of this blog post, ventriloquist Shari Lewis created the very adorable Lamb Chop in 1957 and both Shari (who died  in 1998 of complications related to her cancer treatment) and Lamb Chop remain a fond memory from my childhood.

Jews are from Mars, Christians are from Venus

My Christian interlocutors are therefore justified in their concerns. We must affirm and guard the unity of the ekklesia at the same time as we preserve its essential two-fold nature. How is this to be accomplished? I did not intend in PMJ to propose a particular governmental or structural arrangement for the bilateral ekklesia. Instead, I attempted to define the communal and relational reality that any such arrangement must foster. The discussion about ecclesial structure is yet to take place. It should be set in a dialogue between Christian and Messianic Jewish leaders who accept and embrace the need for both unity and bilateral differentiation.

Dr. Mark S Kinzer from his paper
Postmissionary Messianic Judaism, Three Years Later (2008)

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

Ovadia posted this in the comments section of the blog post Why Bilateral Ecclesiology Will Matter and I finally gave it a read. It's all part of what I now am calling my Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series. You can read What Do We Call a Wandering Christian and the two most recent blog articles I posted before this one to get the context. Reading the other blogs I link off to, including their comments will help immensely, if you haven't been part of the conversation up to this point. Yes, it is a lot of reading.

I'm sure you recognized the title of this blog post as a nod to John Gray's famous and much parodied book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus (which I've never read) about improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships. The idea is that you have two human beings who are fundamentally different from one another who just happen to be sharing a home, a bed, sex, children, money, and everything else...yet they think and feel about all these things in extremely different ways. They practically speak different languages. What do to?

I've come to see Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles, Christians, whatever) in the Messianic movement in more or less the same way. My rather brief encounter with the wife of our local Chabad Rabbi showed me just how different an Orthodox Jewish woman could view and react to me and how "alien" I felt in response. No, she meant no harm and I understand that her behavior was completely driven by cultural and religious norms, but it did highlight the differences Messianic Judaism and Bilateral Ecclesiology (BI) have been trying to beat into my head with a blunt instrument for the past six months or so.

Oh, so that's what you meant (light dawns on "Marblehead").

OK. I get it. I am a critter from Venus and you (Jews in general as well as in the Messianic movement specifically) are from Mars. It's amazing we can co-exist in the same community (or solar system) at all. It's the reason that the Jews in One Law congregations are people who were never raised ethnically or religiously Jewish and had only one Jewish parent (of course, that doesn't explain how religiously and ethnically Jewish people such as Dan Benzvi can consider me a "Fellow Heir" without batting an eye, but I digress).

I wrote my previous blog post out of frustration and a certain amount of despair, but I've had a chance to "sleep on it" and am feeling much better now, thank you very much.

Having read Dr. Kinzer's 2008 paper, which I reference above, the specific quote I used presents the core of our current discussion and the puzzle we are (or at least I am) trying to solve.

What is the relationship between Gentiles and Jews in the Messianic movement supposed to look like? As of 2008, Dr. Kinzer didn't know. He says he never wrote his original book with the idea that he was going to describe "the practical structure of a bilateral ekklesia", so perhaps my bridge building attempts have been in vain.

I previously likened the "bridge building project" as being designed to span a two-mile wide chasm but in practicality, requiring a bridge linking San Francisco and Hawaii. Now I'm considering the gulf to be more "interplanetary" so any "fellowship" will have to be conducted (metaphorically speaking) via radio or rocketship. If our two planets exist in separate solar systems in different parts of the galaxy, then we'll require fictional assistance in the form of "sub-space radio", "warp drive", or a transpacial wormhole.

Point being, this bridge building job just got a whole lot harder.

While structure remains a problem, Dr. Kinzer says the following is of vital importance:

It seems clear from the Apostolic Writings that one of the crucial functions of this ritual is to be an expression and instrument of unity (1 Corinthians 10:16-17; 11:17-32). It is also clear that the Apostles viewed the partaking of food at the same table (in contexts which likely included a eucharistic dimension) as a primary sign of the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in one community (Galatians 2:11-14). Thus, any adequate structural and communal embodiment of bilateral ecclesiology will need to provide contexts where members of the Jewish and Gentile wings of the one ekklesia can gather together to celebrate HaZikkaron as one two-fold body.

Ovadia suggested a practical application based on my Boychiks in the Hood metaphor:

Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians can be "ekklesia" together without necessarily being part of the same congregations. We should worship jointly, feast for Yeshua's sake jointly, participate in tikkun olam jointly, study jointly. But jointly. Not as an blob of amorphous Jew-Gentile, but as Jews and Gentiles, each confident in their own God-given identity, together. In your metaphor, the two neighborhoods should come together regularly to throw block parties, and keep those friendships.

That requires some working out of community standards for food at the very least and perhaps a mutually agreed upon worship structure (siddurim, hymnals, or both?) as well.

Of course, Dr. Kinzer is talking about establishing and maintaining relationships primarily with people who are affiliated with a traditional Christian church, not those of us who are part of what Derek Leman calls Judaically-informed Christian congregations (AKA One Law groups). To be fair, Derek is suggesting a third alternative for Gentiles in "the movement" who would not be entirely welcome in a traditional Messianic Jewish venue (that is, a traditional synagogue service for Messianic Jews) nor be comfortable returning to a traditional church setting. His viewpoint is controversial as he readily acknowledges, but he is trying to see to the needs of people like me, who are not accounted for in Kinzer's model.

If we accept as a given that Jews in the Messianic movement require a traditional Jewish worship setting that allows them to maintain an observant lifestyle, has a strong affiliation to the covenant and Israel, and provides potential linkage to a larger Judaism, then assuming that the linkage also travels in the direction of the Christian world by virtue of a common worship of the Jewish Messiah, we need to start working on the currently non-existent "practical structure of a bilateral ekklesia".

I used to be a pretty big science fiction fan and as a kid in the 1960s, I watched a lot of hokey TV shows. One of them was the Irwin Allen "classic" (I say that tongue-in-cheek) The Time Tunnel. This was a secret Government project designed to create a point-to-point link between the present and any other moment in time. Of course, it got broken, sending two American scientists across the time-line and stranding them in one cornball version of a historical event after another on a weekly basis. Nostalgia makes the show for me a fond memory and in the current context, it becomes a persistent image.

Like my former reference to a wormhole (which is at least theoretically possible), maybe given the distance between us, we don't need a bridge so much as a conduit that creates a virtual "tunnel" between our two worlds. Like many inventions suggested by science fiction and then realized in the world of technology (1966 Star Trek communicators and 2010 cell phones, for instance), maybe what seems impossible now is just waiting for the right moment to become possible.

Or are we waiting for the finger of God to start writing on our world...or in our hearts?

Boychiks in the Hood

I never said that the Jewish people didn’t have the right to live in Jewish communities, Gene. Also the John 10 statement isn’t that clear as to the “implementation” of “two pens, one flock, one shepherd”, so there’s a bit of a wobble in the picture. If we acknowledge that there’s a Jewish pen and a Gentile pen, where does the “one flock” come in?

It’s sort of like saying that Chicago has a Jewish neighborhood and a Gentile neighborhood (although by definition, every neighborhood that isn’t Jewish is goy) but Chicago has one mayor who has “authority” over both neighborhoods within the city limits. Yeah, we all live in the same city, but if you’ve ever lived in a city with distinct “hoods” separated by nationality, ethnicity, and language, they might was well be on different planets. Even if you go to visit another neighborhood, you don’t belong and the “mayor” is an irrevelency in the equation (if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor). In this sense, both neighborhoods (pens) being in one city (flock) really doesn’t matter, except they still both have to pay the same taxes, obey the same traffic laws, and so forth. There’s no “connection” between the two neighborhoods based solely on having the same mayor (shepherd).

My response to Gene in Ovadia's blog post
Why Bilateral Ecclesiology Will Matter

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

This builds on conversations on Gene Shlomovich's blog as well as the blog I just quoted from and is an extension to my article from earlier today Bridging the Vastness. Before I continue though, I have to apologize to author Robert Eisenberg for "borrowing" the title of his book Boychiks in the Hood. I've never read his book (though I know where I can get my hands on a copy), but the title fit the metaphor I used above so well.

It's been just over 24 hours since this happened (forgive the length):

I had an interesting and somewhat related experience last night. The local Chabad Rabbi and his family had a “financial reversal” and were forced to move out of their home and relocate in a smaller space. My wife and I have been storing some of their belongings in our garage until their situation improves. After I came home from work last night, my daughter told me that the Rabbi’s wife was coming by to pick up some clothes for the kids.

When the Rebbetzin arrived, she seemed to have a hard time talking to me directly, answering to my daughter, even when I asked a question. I offered to help her take her things out to her car, but she said she’d be able to manage herself. I got the distinct impression she wasn’t comfortable with me at all, though we’d never met before.

After the Rebbetzin left, I asked my daughter if I had done anything that could have made the Rabbetzin uncomfortable. My daughter thought that she was just uncomfortable around Gentiles. She said that the Rabbi’s family have only Jewish friends and don’t associate with non-Jews socially. Later, I posed the same question to my wife, and she thought it was just because I was a guy and her husband hadn’t been present.

I say all this to emphasize that, while we talk a great deal about unity and brotherhood between Gentile and Jew, we tend to forget that we live in different worlds. While I’ve generally had no difficulty in casual relationships and even friendships with secular and liberal Jewish people over the years, I have tried to steer clear of the local Chabad because I realize that they’d be upset with my “Messianic” affiliation, if it became known.

I’ve continued to ponder the matter this morning and am coming to realize that the gulf between Gentiles and Jews, even in the Messianic movement, is a great deal wider than I’d previously considered. If indeed Jews in the Messianic movement, like religious Jews in general, need to have synagogues and communities to serve their unique needs, then Gentiles may very well not be able to “join in” without provoking a great deal of anxiety.

While, as Gene says, the Rebbetzin's response to me may simply be an Orthodox Jewish woman's being uncomfortable in a man's presence, particularly with her husband not being around, it did serve as a catalyst for a rather rapid trip down an uncomfortable path. Please bear with me.

I'm not going to go through a series of lengthy quotes from the Aposotlic scriptures describing the struggle of trying to integrate formerly pagan Gentiles into discipleship and worship of the Jewish Messiah. We all know or should be aware of how Paul describes these events. None of the Jewish disciples could really figure out what to do with the Gentiles but, after all, in Matthew 28, Yeshua was clear that he wanted Gentiles to be made disciples as well. In Acts 10, Peter had a close encounter with a blanket full of treif and as a result, got to witness the fact that Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit in the same manner as believing Jews. Perhaps the Acts 15 letter was a response to the "Gentile crisis" and designed to at least temporarily put the Gentiles "on hold" with a limited set of requirements closely mirroring the Noahide Laws, while giving the Jerusalem Council some breathing room to develop a long-term plan (admittedly, I'm taking liberties with the text, but be patient with me on this).

Of course, the long-term plan, if it was ever considered, never was enacted and a long series of events resulted in a separation between the Gentile and Jewish believers and ultimately, thrust the now Goy Jesus into the hands of the Christians while most Jews came to "realize" that the Messiah was yet to come.

Question. Did the Goyim kick the Jews out of the "Messiah club" because Gentiles couldn't or didn't want to enter into a Jewish religion where their options for expression were limited due to their lack of being Jewish or did the Jews walk out because the Gentiles were overrunning the place? I know this sounds cynical, but in many ways, this is the same struggle we find ourselves in today between Gentiles and Jews in the Messianic movement.

Derek Leman has suggested that Gentile Christians can form Judaically-informed congregations and refrain from referring to themselves as "Messianic" to clear up the identity confusion, but this hasn't met with complete acceptance by other involved parties. There really isn't a "quick fix" to this problem, nor do I suspect there will be. Gene has said and I'm agreeing with him at this point, that the struggle won't end until the Messiah comes and straightens us all out.

But what do we do in the meantime?

Do we continue to attempt to build a bridge between our two separate and isolated "neighborhoods" or do we just agree to be separate and distinct and apart and wait. Well, we wouldn't be waiting exactly, we'd be doing what Christians and Jews have done for two-thousand years. We'd be trying to be polite neighbors (I'm not anticipating any pogroms in the United States at this point) but we wouldn't have much to do with each other, except in rare cases. We would live on the world but not in each other's worlds.

Oh, there'd be friendships and sometimes (heaven forbid) intermarriages and other wrinkles in the fabric. Some liberal Jews would associate with Christians and some Christians would want to hang out and learn from the Jews, but like I said...it would be rare...and no one would be threatened.

Based on the "neighborhood" metaphor, there isn't wholesale mixing of people and "practices" between "hoods". If you live in a predominantly white suburb, for example, chances are, you wouldn't be completely at ease in an inner city ghetto, a barrio, or even a predominantly Jewish neighborhood like Crown Heights in Brooklyn. Sure, you could visit. Maybe you have a favorite deli you like to visit and their pastrami on rye is out of this world, but it's just a visit. You don't live there. You don't fit in. It's not your "hood". People are different there.

Frankly, I'm amazed that Gentile participation in "Messianic Judaism" got this far. Of course, we can attribute it to the One Law movement which, up until fairly recently, was the predominant voice of "Messianic Judaism", but as Gene outlines in his blog, as Messianic Judaism progresses more toward a "Judaism" in practice, purpose, and lifestyle, it won't be a "Christian" neighborhood anymore...it will be Jewish.

That leaves something of a vacuum for the Gentiles who have previously felt welcome in a "One Law" style "Messianic Judaism". Sure, we can form our own "Hebraic" or "Judaically-informed" congregations, but they'll suffer from terminal isolation from both the Christian and Jewish worlds. Either people in One Law congregations will circle their wagons and create their forts or the people in them will return to the church where at least they'll be in a "Christian" neighborhood.

Some like me will discover that we no longer belong in the Christian neighborhood either. The concepts are too different and, after all, I have a Jewish wife who, when the last kid moves out, wants to kasher our kitchen, so my home will become continually more Jewish. No, I wouldn't fit in the Christian hood.

I already know many Gentile "Messianics" who choose to not affiliate with any congregation, usually due to the dangers in One Law of poor leadership bordering on cultism or some other unpleasant experience. They maintain quiet home fellowships or simply worship as individual families.

I've quoted from Matthew 8:11 more than once today but given my continual progression down this path that I've been walking for a little over a day now, I don't see how I'll ever be able to sit down at that table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob without feeling like a damn fool or at least like a fish in a bicycle factory.

Bilateral Ecclesiology proponents say that for the good of the Jewish people in the Jewish Messianic "neighborhoods", we Christians (my wife calls me a Christian) should stay in our neighborhoods, shop at our stores, eat at our restaurants, play in our parks, and worship in our congregations. We can be polite and even friendly neighbors. Nothing wrong with borrowing a cup of sugar on occasion. But the wall stays up. I'm again reminded of Robert Frost's very famous poem Mending Wall:

But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go...

Good fences make good neighbors.

Afterword: I just told Gene on a blog comment that I don't so much write essays as process thoughts. That means my blog posts aren't final conclusions so much as periodic journal or diary entries. This is my entry for tonight. Tomorrow when I wake up, the world may look different. I'll let you know.

What Do We Call a Wandering Christian?

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself. -Juliet

Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series

Thanks to Judah Himango's Weekly Bracha 48, I had the opportunity to read Derek Leman's blog post Not Jewish Yet Drawn to Torah, Part 5 (and I had to do a Google search to find parts 1 through 4, which I wanted to read for context). I did post a brief comment in response on Derek's blog, but my initial thought when reading the article was, "Haven't we gone over this before?"

If you haven't read Derek's article (and I highly recommend that you do, especially the comments section), he proposes that Gentile individuals and groups who are "drawn to the Torah" but have no Jewish identity, redefine their religious identity, specifically abstaining from using the term "Messianic" to refer to themselves (ourselves...myself) and instead, to use some other label. He suggests Judeo-Christian, which has problems if, for no other reason, than it's already been taken:

Judeo-Christian is used by some to refer to a set of beliefs and ethics held in common by Judaism and Christianity. Others--usually Jews--consider it a "contradiction in terms" that "appeals to a nonexistent historical unity and calls for a banal, modernist theology." It is nevertheless a common term in American cultural and political rhetoric.
Wikipedia

What particularly struck me, besides what I've mentioned so far, was published by Derek in his prior article Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 3:

(1) Reconsider Christianity. What were your reasons for leaving? Let me anticipate and try to defuse a criticism: “Derek, I can’t believe you started with this one; you just want non-Jews to go back to churches.”

No, I want people to make informed choices. And a bedrock notion for me is that Christianity, in all its imperfections (it’s hilarious if anyone thinks that Judaism or “Messianic” groups do better overall than Christianity) is God’s redemptive community for the nations.

The assumption Derek makes, and it's a good one, is that many Gentiles "leave the church" for a variety of reasons, usually ranging from general dissatisfaction to an intense feeling of being "betrayed" by the church. Further, they (we) tend to believe that Messianic Judaism (for lack of a better term) is a more viable option for worship and "truth".

I have to say at this juncture, that many of us "leave traditional Christianity" for other reasons not associated with any "conflict" with the church, per se. In my case, my wife became attracted to the Messianic movement which turned out to be her first step in re-capturing her Jewish identity. I came along for the ride initially and then discovered the wonder of looking at the Bible through a "Torah-lens" for myself.

Jews in the Messianic movement generally reject the designation of  "Christian" because that term denies their very nature as Jews. Gentiles in the "Messianic movement" (and I know Derek will object to me using this term in relation to non-Jews) tend to reject the designation of "Christian" because they (we) believe that it is attached to a collection of beliefs and behaviors that deny significant parts of the Biblical record, deny the current "choseness" of the Jewish people, and maintains many traditions with pagan origins (and I've tried to address some of these errors in Gentile Messianic thinking in my Christmas blog post and in reviewing FFOZ's What About Paganism?).

In reading over parts 1 through 4 of Derek's series (you should really give them a whirl...I'll put the links toward the bottom of this blog post), I've learned that Derek isn't absolutely against Gentiles forming what he calls Judaically informed congregations, as opposed to simply shooing all of them (us) back into "the church" proper. He further says in part 4 of his series:

That non-Jews who are currently involved in Messianic Judaism can and should (if they choose) remain and understand the nature of Messianic Judaism more clearly. I am aware of (but can’t say too much about) leaders who are working on standards for keeping identities clear in Jewish practice. Messianic Judaism can be seen as pioneering the bringing together of non-Jews and Jews in communities practicing Judaism. The very idea of this disturbs purists and makes our movement vulnerable to criticism from the outside. So be it. There is Jewish precedent, in history and in the thought of some modern Jewish thinkers, for making a place for non-Jews to come into the sphere of Judaism.

Well...dang! That's pretty amazing.

The overarching question is how to include both Jews and Gentiles in "the Messianic movement" while maintaining the uniqueness of identity and roles of the Jewish people within said movement? This question has a "part 2". Here it is. How do you include both Jews and Gentiles in "the Messianic movement" and avoid making the Gentiles in the movement feel like they are second-class citizens sitting at the "back of the bus?"

I asked Boaz Michael that question once over coffee and he told me he thought that a certain amount of "back of the bus" feelings among Gentile Messianics was probably unavoidable. I don't know if I agree that it's inevitable, but I guess we'll see.

I don't think it's Derek's intention to deliberately marginalize Gentiles in "the movement" (although I used to). Why should he? After all, as a Gentile "convert" to Messianic Judaism (and I still have issues with this process, including whether or not it is even possible), he should have a unique affinity for being "not Jewish yet drawn to the Torah". He should have an intimate understanding of what it's like to be a Christian and yet to see beyond the traditional Christian interpretation of the "Old Testament". He should understand what it's like to be a Gentile Christian and to welcome the beauty of the Torah into his heart.

In short, he should deeply understand the rest of us.

The question introduced by Derek (on the most recent occasion) is, do Jewish and Gentile groups in "the movement" require significantly different labels in order to maintain distinctiveness? Here's another question.

Who "owns" the term "Messianic"?

In other words, can one group claim "Messianic" for their own and require that other groups refrain from using it?

I don't know. Maybe not. Frankly, "Messianic" is just about the perfect term to define both Jews and Gentiles in "the movement" because (and here's an important point), it's not just the differences between Jews and Gentiles in "the movement" that need to be clearly defined, it's the commonalities that need clarification as well.

I can see why this is a 5-part series on Derek's blog (and I don't doubt number 6 is on the way) since the topic goes to the very core of our struggles in defining and re-defining "the movement". We have hashed and re-hashed this conversation again and again and I'm convinced we'll still be making hash out of it when the Messiah returns.

Here's the kicker, though.

My wife is Jewish. She wasn't raised in a Jewish home, but her mother was (she passed away many years ago) Jewish (raised in an observant Jewish home on the East Coast). In recent years, God set off a switch deep inside of my wife and she embarked on a pursuit of her Judaism. She is currently affiliated with the local Chabad synagogue in our little corner of the world and I can tell you definitively, she is Jewish and not "Messianic".

I attend and teach at what you might call a One Law congregation, although I'm trying to make some changes in our thinking.

However, regardless of what we may call ourselves ("Messianic", "One Law", "One Torah", and so on), my wife (and the rest of traditional Judaism...Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and so on) calls me a "Christian".

In that sense, it doesn't matter what I call myself because the Jewish world outside of my own little bubble doesn't see me that way. They see me as a Christian. In fact, they see the entire population of the "Messianic movement" as Christian.

Here are the links to Derek's Not Jewish Yet Drawn to Torah series:

Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 1
Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 2
Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 3
Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 4
Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 5

NOTE: Since I published this blog post, Derek Leman wrote Not Jewish yet Drawn to Torah, Part 6. He doesn't directly address any of my points, but I went ahead and posted a lengthy comment anyway. Hop on over and see what it's all about. Oh, and he's going to write a Part 7 in the near future.

Original post continues below:

While Derek and I have had our differences in the past (and I'm sure we will again), I must admit to appreciating many of the points he makes in his series. I don't agree with everything he says, but I can see him making a real effort to build and maintain a bridge between Jews and Gentiles in "the movement" and after all, building bridges is the reason I started writing my own personal blog.

I've been walking on this bridge for awhile now. I don't know where the end of the bridge will take me. I started this blog last July to explore, not only my own assumptions, but the validity of my place in "the Messianic movement", in "Christianity" or anywhere else in the community of faith. Can I be part of building a bridge that matters? Does the bridge lead anywhere? Is there anyone who wants to build the bridge, too?

I've come to realize that I've given my little quest a time limit and about half that time has elapsed.

Derek brings up a question he didn't intend, but one that has been resting upon my shoulders like the weight of the world on the mythical Atlas. If a Gentile believer doesn't find a place in the Christian world nor in the "Messianic" world, is there a place for him at all?

I still believe that God wants me in His Kingdom somewhere. I'm just not convinced that we human beings have caught up with God's plan to build one flock out of two sheep pens (John 10:14-16).

Alongside

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you know one of the central themes I write about (harp on) is the apparent disparity and disunity between Jews and Gentiles in the Messianic movement. Half the time I'm told it's the Gentiles' fault for trying to usurp practices that are exclusively Jewish and so on and so forth. I'm not even sure there is another half of the time, which doesn't make things any easier. Trying to figure out what this relationship is supposed to be, particularly from God's point of view (let alone all of the human beings who have an opinion) gives me a headache and right now, I have a beaut.

However Dr Michael Schiffman has been kind enough to comment on my one of the blog posts I wrote for my congregation's blog and recently, he responded to a comment made by another reader that went like this:

".. there is nothing wrong with gentles coming alongside Jewish brethren and learning Torah. Part off Torah talks about the Jewish people (Israel) being set apart from the nations. When the nations start saying they are the same as us, it negates God’s intent that Israel be a separate nation with a separate unique calling. Its not a judgement against Gentiles, just acknowledging Israel’s unique calling. It is not that anyone is better than anyone else. One new Man does not mean we are the same. Its nothing personal, I assure you. I know many Gentiles get offended by that, but there is no intent to offend. I’m sure that was not God’s intent in Torah either."

I know that many Gentile Messianics and some Jewish Messianics may take exception to Dr Schiffman's explanation, but it was just about the most straightforward and clear description of Jews and Gentiles in the Messianic community that I've ever heard...well, ever read, anyway. Usually these discussions are charged with so much emotion that it's hard to get a simple and clear answer out of anyone regarding how we're supposed to interact and get along (or even if we are supposed to get along). However you want to take it, I thought that there was something to this coming alongside comment that should be shared.

What may chafe the Gentiles in the movement is that the definition of "alongside" refers to being "parallel" and "close by one side", which sounds pretty good, but it's not the same as being "equal". I think the lack of equality in the relationship is usually interpreted as "Gentiles are inferior", but that doesn't seem to be what Dr Schiffman is saying. You can have a man and a woman alongside each other, they can be equal in that they have equal worth as people and equal worth before God, but they certainly aren't the exact same beings. Maybe this is what Paul was trying to describe here:

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. -Galatians 3:26-29

I don't know if that's supposed to be the whole answer, but it's a start. I know. It seems like we should be a lot further along than just at the starting line, but starting down the path, even if we're starting over and over again, is better than not walking the path together at all.

Two of the Master's sheep in the sheep pen walking side-by-side. One black and one white. It's a start.

Just a Black Sheep Trying to Hang in There

Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. -Romans 15:2-6

For this coming week, along with the traditional readings from the Torah and the Prophets, I'm reading Romans 15 and 16 which is the conclusion of Paul's missive to the Jewish and Gentile believers in ancient Rome. As we see in the passage I just quoted, Paul is encouraging his audience to put aside their desires to please themselves and to instead, to join together "with one heart and mouth" to give glory to God, even as Messiah Yeshua did, acting as our example.

Particularly in Romans 15, Paul draws a strong connection between his service to the Jewish people and teaching the Gentiles to obey the lessons of God. In fact, the word "obedience" seems to come up a lot in this context.

Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy... -Romans 15:7-9

Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God. I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done - by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. -Romans 15:17-19

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. -Romans 16:17-19

Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him - to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen. -Romans 16:25-27

I've summarized my thoughts about what the Gentiles are supposed to obey in a previous blog post, and these conclusions shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone who is familiar to what Yeshua (Jesus) taught in the Gospels. There's no emphasis teaching Gentiles to try to look and act like Jews, but there's a tremendous emphasis in teaching Gentiles the morality imparted in the Torah of God; how to love God and how to love other people.

Paul quotes 2 Samuel 22:50, Psalm 18:49, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1, and Isaiah 11:10 in order to establish and emphasize that the Gentiles are just as welcome in the community of God as the Jewish people:

Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:
"Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
I will sing hymns to your name." Again, it says,
"Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people." And again,
"Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and sing praises to him, all you peoples." And again, Isaiah says,
"The Root of Jesse will spring up,
one who will arise to rule over the nations;
the Gentiles will hope in him." -Romans 15:7-12

In reviewing the state of Jewish and Gentile relations in the Messianic community today, it seems that either we have forgotten what Paul was trying to teach here or perhaps, the lesson was never actually implemented between Jewish and Gentile disciples in the Messianic community of the ancient world.

Paul made a specific point that if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews' spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings (Romans 15:27) and I think we see much of the traditional Christian church providing such support these days. If Gentile Messianics are serious about being co-heirs with Israel, then we must continue to provide that support, not because we are told we owe it to them by our Jewish counterparts, but because, as part of our "Torah" obedience, we are lining up our wills and our hearts with the desires of God and the choseness of the Jewish people.

We don't have to be estranged or divided if both types of sheep in the Messianic sheep pen are listening to the voice of the one shepherd as part of the one flock (John 10:16). If we concentrate on our differences and let the walls between us define our relationship, we will always be separate and apart from one another. Is that what "one flock and one shepherd means?

Signed, one lone black sheep in the flock, just trying to hang in there.