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?

You Who Are With Us Today

You stand this day, all of you, before the Lord your God — your tribal heads, your elders and your officials, all the men of Israel, your children, your wives, even the stranger within your camp, from woodchopper to waterdrawer — to enter into the covenant of the Lord your God, which the Lord your God is concluding with you this day, with its sanctions; to the end that He may establish you this day as His people and be your God, as He promised you and as He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I make this covenant, with its sanctions, not with you alone, but both with those who are standing here with us this day before the Lord our God and with those who are not with us here this day. -Deuteronomy 29:9-14

This is a beautiful picture of all the diversity of roles and types among the Children of Israel and the Mixed Multitude (or rather, their children) who had originally left Egypt with the Israelites, standing together in relation to each other and the covenant of God. The words following words from this part (Deuteronomy 29:13-14) of Torah Portion Nitzavim are particularly intriguing:

I make this covenant, with its sanctions, not with you alone, but both with those who are standing here with us this day before the Lord our God and with those who are not with us here this day.

This is traditionally interpreted as referring to the unborn generations of Jews and in fact, all Jews who have ever been born and who will ever be born anywhere, since every Jew is to consider himself or herself as having personally stood at Mt Sinai to accept the Torah from God through Moses. But how does this figure in relation to unborn generations of Gentiles who would one day accept Yeshua as Messiah, Savior, Lord, and Master? Does this have anything to do with them, or, like a laser, are these words only pointed at a very small and specific target and, in this case, a Jewish target?

A strict Messianic Jewish/Bilateral Ecclesiology (MJ/BE) viewpoint would say the latter and further, they would say that, regardless of all the different roles described in the passage from Deuteronomy 29, all those people were either born Jews or Gentiles who had converted to Judaism (or rather, their children). Yet the picture of a diverse group standing together, listening to one Prophet of God, living a single life under the One God is compelling. Were Jewish and Gentile believers in God always meant to be segregated, particularly with the advent of Yeshua? Consider the following:

The Jews and Gentile God-fearers worshiping together in the synagogue in Thessalonica.

When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women. -Acts 17:1-4

The Jews and Gentile God-fearers worshiping together in the synagogue in Berea.

As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. -Acts 17:10-12

The Jews and Gentile God-fearers worshiping together in the synagogue in Athens.

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. -Acts 17:16-17

The Jews and Gentile God-fearers worshiping together in the synagogue in Corinth.

After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. -Acts 18:1-4

We see Paul journeying to a number of different areas in the diaspora and visiting synagogues where he found not only Jews but a number of Gentile God-fearers worshiping God. Logically, if Gentiles were worshiping in Jewish synagogues, they were being exposed to the same prayers and teachings as the Jews. There was no separation of groups where Gentiles were expected to attend a different set of services designed just for non-Jews. Nor did the Jewish congregants of these synagogues seem to believe that having Gentiles present somehow inhibited their ability to worship as Jews or somehow threatened their "Jewish identity".

When Paul taught at these synagogues and "Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men", we don't also see Paul telling the congregation to create two segregated groups in order to avoid "identity confusion" between the Jewish and Gentile believers. We can accept, as a matter of historical fact, that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, a schism occurred between the Jewish and Gentile believers in Yeshua for a number of different religious, social, and political reasons but not out of a purposeful design by Paul to preserve Jewish identity in synagogues containing Gentile Yeshua-believers.

Once Paul delivered the message of the good news among the Jews and the Gentile God-fearers, there is no reason to expect that the God-fearers were suddenly kicked out of the synagogue. Why wouldn't they continue to stay in the synagogue, Jew and Gentile Yeshua-believer alike, and keep on worshiping as they had been doing previously?

Of course, this doesn't address the pagan Gentiles who came to faith in Yeshua apart from a synagogue setting and apart from a previous experience as God-fearers, so we can believe they either joined a synagogue with a Messianic Jewish leadership or they developed fellowships that were primarily Gentile, but that would be the result of circumstance, not Heavenly planning. Under those circumstances, people of like types and like languages and customs would be expected to congregate together, just as you'll find many neighborhoods today in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco that were originally established by people coming from the same country who spoke the same language. Not divine planning but rather human national and cultural familiarity.

Considering the numerous "mixed" synagogues chronicled in Acts 17 and in the beginning of Acts 18, the final words of the Jerusalem letter contain new meaning and perhaps more than a little irony:

For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. -Acts 15:21

Certainly, those Gentile God-fearers who became Gentile Messianic believers would have heard and would have kept on hearing Moses being read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. While this may not make it particularly clear how the differences between Gentile and Jewish worshipers of Messiah functioned in a united synagogue setting, it does illustrate that they did function together. Paul didn't mandate a separation and neither, apparently, did Yeshua. Differences between Gentile and Jewish "identity" were probably assumed, at least in that context (though Paul's letter to the Galatians does indicate some Jewish and/or Gentile Judaizers did cause problems that Paul had to manage).

I'm not making a big, theological or "ecclesiastical" pronouncement, but even learned study and analysis must give way to a plain reading of the text and a certain amount of common sense. Jews and Gentiles were worshiping together in synagogues in a number of different areas of the diaspora before Paul ever showed up to bring the good news of Yeshua. Why would they have split into Jewish vs. Gentile congregations upon hearing Paul's message?

Is the Bible for Christians?

This probably sounds like another of my ridiculous questions, but let's keep in mind that not all of the comments made in the Bible were directed at a general human audience. For instance, much of the Torah is specifically Moses, as the Prophet of God, telling the Children of Israel what their duties and responsibilities are to God and to each other. Even Yeshua/Jesus was speaking, most of the time, to his Jewish disciples and to a Jewish audience. Only on rare occasions, did he ever mention or address non-Jews. So what does the Bible have to do with Gentiles?

I'm in the process of reading through the Book of Jeremiah. I can't help but be taken by the loving comments God has to say to the Children of Israel, even as He is sending them off into exile in Babylonia for 70 years. He's already encouraging them and saying to them that they will call out to Him and He will listen to them and restore them to their Lands and they will be His people and He will be their God.

I can only imagine, even in the bitterness of exile and servitude in Babylonia, that this love must have been of great comfort and that the Jewish nation must have realized, no matter what happened to them, nothing would separate them from the love of God. I don't doubt many a Christian Pastor has used these passages to illustrate the love that Jesus has for Gentile Christians, but can comments made by God, through Jeremiah to the Jewish people be generalized to the rest of humanity? That may not be the case, but let's see.

I ask this question because, as you probably know by now if you've been reading this blog, I've been re-examining my assumptions about God, Yeshua, and my relationship to the Lord of Heaven, in order to see how or even if I somehow fit into His plan. I think I can definitively say that God has not abandoned or forsaken the rest of humanity, but do we have a clear picture of our role in relationship to God? Does the Bible, the totality of the Bible, speak to all of humanity, or do only certain portions apply? To take it a step further, are there portions of the Bible that Gentile believers in Yeshua read in vain?

Besides the Book of Jeremiah, some of the comments made in response to my prior blog article Who am I? inspired today's blog. For instance:

James, of course one can study G-d's word without being obligated to it or parts of it. Think about this: I am not a Kohaine or a Levite, but I can learn a lot from studying the very specific requirements given to them, even though all of them are not only NOT required for me, it would be grave SIN for me if I even attempted to take on the role of Kohaine or Levite (with me not being one).

This seems to answer my question. I can indeed study all parts of the Bible with the understanding that some or even most of the Bible really doesn't apply to me, at least from the point of view of the Bilateral Ecclesiology contingent of Messianic Judaism. As part of my self re-examination, I've been using MJ/BE as one of the mechanisms to test my understanding of my role in life and my role in the universe. I'm not saying that I believe MJ/BE is the best possible lens for which a Gentile "Yeshua-believer" to view himself or herself, but it does present a strikingly different view of who I'm supposed to be, relative to my usual understanding. Utilizing their teachings about Jews, Gentiles, and God, if nothing else, helps me to see where any gaps may exist in my faith and my knowledge. If I can "survive" an examination from the MJ/BE point of view, perhaps some of my dross will be burned away and I can become a more pure product.

I was entertaining visions of having my Bible being reduced to a pamphlet if I was only "allowed" access to the portions that specifically address Gentiles. There's an "urban legend" (I don't know if it's true or not) about Thomas Jefferson that says he used a pair of shears to cut out the parts of the Bible he didn't like. I had a vision of that being done to my Bible so that I could only read those bits and pieces that MJ/BE believes apply to me. Thankfully, it was just a wild bit of imagination.

It's somewhat comforting to know that I can still read those portions that don't have anything to do with me, though somewhat disturbing that some MJ/BE folks may consider it not only inappropriate for me to rest on the Shabbat but even, by implication, a sin.

Fear not. I fully intend on continuing to read all of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, and attempt to gain a deeper understanding of God and humanity from His word. While not 100% of the Bible operates as a set of directives to be accessed by Gentiles, I believe a larger portion of the principles and examples are illuminating for all mankind. As far as I can tell, MJ/BE apparently limits the Torah to a set of directives aimed at two primary audiences: Jews and Gentiles.

The majority of directives apply to the Jewish people and only a tiny subset apply to Gentiles. Even directives in the Torah such as "Thou Shalt not Kill" and "Thou Shalt not Covet" apply only to the Jews, according to MJ/BE. Of course, not even MJ/BE believes that Gentiles are enabled by God to murder and covet freely and without consequences. Their justification for those commandments not applying to Gentile believers is that A. It's already written on our hearts, so we should know better and B. The written version of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" carries with it increased penalties for the Jewish people should they violate that commandment. Somehow this means that the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" written on my heart applies to me but the version written in the Bible does not. Yes, it's confusing to me, too.

To a degree, I'm a believer of the principle of Occam's Razor which, according to Wikipedia, states in part, ...that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. In order for the above explanation about the Torah to work, you have to perform more than a few literary and theological gymnastics (not unlike some portions of Kinzer's Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People, which I will review at a later time). Hardly the "simplest explanation". While I don't advocate Gentiles dressing up and pretending to be Jewish, I do believe that a larger portion of the Bible describes principles and lifestyle standards that can and should be applied to the wider Ekklesia. There is nothing wrong with Gentile believers feeding the poor, as it says in the Torah. There is nothing wrong with Gentile believers visiting the sick as it says in the Torah. There is nothing wrong with helping your neighbor with a problem, even if you don't really like your neighbor, as it says in the Torah. Most importantly, there is nothing wrong with a Gentile believer reading of these principles in the Torah/Bible, understanding that these are behaviors that God approves of in all humanity, and behaving out of these principles as written in the Torah. It takes nothing away from Judaism and specifically Messianic Judaism. Some support for this can be found in the commentary of Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth on Torah Portion Vaetchanan. Quoting R. Shmuel David Luzzatto, Rabbi Sacks says:

The effect of Christianity and Islam was to spread the Jewish message - albeit in ways with which Jews could not fully agree - throughout the world. Today these religions represent more than half of the six billion people on the face of the earth. The 'Judeo-Christian ethic' and the Abrahamic faiths have shaped much of the civilization of the West. The Torah really did become 'your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations.'

One of the obvious intents of God for the Jewish people and the Torah, was to be a "light to the world", as cited in the aforementioned Torah Portion. This is echoed in Yeshua's statements in both Matthew 5:13-16 in which he calls himself a "light of the world" and in Matthew 5:43-48 in which he refers to his Jewish disciples as that light. Connecting that to Matthew 28 and the ministries of Paul and Peter to the Gentiles, it seems clear that Yeshua expected his Jewish disciples to ...go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you (emphasis mine). I'm not saying in this, that Yeshua necessarily told his Jewish disciples to go and teach the Gentiles to obey the totality of the Torah commandments, but putting all this together, there seems to be an intent for Gentiles to be taught a set of morals, ethics, practices, and principles of righteousness that are God-based and Torah-based (as perhaps opposed to Torah-inclusive). If all of the Torah that we needed was already written on our hearts, why would Yeshua specifically direct his disciples to teach all of his lessons to the nations? And why oh why, would Gentiles have the Bible in our hands today if we didn't need a written copy of what is written on our hearts? If MJ/BE is right, all I really need is to consult with my human intuition and just "know" what God wants me to do. No need to "test the spirits" by comparing my feelings with the word of God (and this last comment is definitely tongue-in-cheek).

Yes of course, the Bible is for everyone and, although not every specific commandment or situation is directly applicable to Gentile Yeshua-believers, much more can and should be relevant and meaningful to us than a mere portion of Acts 15.

Who am I?

This is something of a companion to yesterday's blog What am I doing here? but without most of the rant and frustration. Right to it, then.

In traditional Christianity, the Christian is defined as saved by grace and a beneficiary of God's grace through Jesus Christ. The Law, which previously defined the Jewish people, was done away with, and was replaced by grace. Christians who have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are defined by grace and not by the Law and behaviorally, are free from about 99% of what used to be required by the Law (that figure might be a slight exaggeration on my part).

In the traditional One Law view, Gentiles and Jews both are saved by grace, not works, but out of faith and grace, adhere to "God's preferred lifestyle for the redeemed community" by their obligation to the 613 commandments, or at least as many as can be obeyed without the Temple in Jerusalem and (for most of us) living in the diaspora.

In the Messianic Jewish/Bilateral Eccelesiology viewpoint, only Jews (Messianic or otherwise) are obligated to the full weight of Torah. Any Gentiles who choose to worship in an MJ/BE context accept that only a small subset of the written Torah applies to them and that, all other requirements of God for believing Gentiles are "written on their hearts" (Romans 2:12-16), although exactly what is actually written there is poorly defined by the MJ/BE movement. The Acts 15 letter is seen as defining the most important requirements for Gentiles, but cannot be the full limit as, for instance, not murdering isn't listed. Yet the letter is viewed as specifically not requiring full Torah obedience from Gentile believers in the Messiah.

That brings me to my topic for today. In my conversations with adherents of MJ/BE, I, as a Gentile, have been defined specifically by who I am not, and what I cannot do relative to the Bible and the Messianic Jewish community. MJ/BE proponents characterize my worship life in terms of a set of restrictions and lack of access. For instance, as a Gentile, I am not allowed the blessing of an aliyah because only Jews are obligated to Torah and thus, allowed to read the Torah in public (I suppose I should say "read the Torah aloud in a Messianic Jewish service", since I'm sure I wouldn't be prevented from reading a Torah portion to myself in a public library or reading out loud from Deuteronomy to my grandson in a public park). I cannot pray wearing tzitzit because that commandment was only given by Moses to the Jews. I might be able to pray from the siddur but this becomes questionable since the siddur was written for a specifically Jewish audience.

I'm not saying this to complain but rather to illustrate that the MJ/BE perspective seems to see Gentiles in their midst relative to who we are not rather than who we are. We are seen by what we are not allowed to do rather than what we can do. We are defined, basically, in terms of the negative rather than anything positive. Is it any wonder that some Gentiles may chafe when asked to cheerfully consider themselves as what amounts to a restricted "species"?

Here's a couple of thoughts:

The actual intent is to say that we are thankful that God has enlightened us so that, unlike the pagans, we worship the true God and not idols. There is no inherent superiority in being Jewish, but we do assert the superiority of monotheistic belief over paganism. Although paganism still exists today, we are no longer the only ones to have a belief in one God -Rabbi Reuven Hammer of Masorti Judaism

What Paul means is that circumcision and Jewish identity do not elevate a Jew above the Gentle before God. There is a difference in role but no hierarchy of status -Mark Kinzer, Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People

Both Rabbi Hammer and Dr. Kinzer state that the distinctiveness of the Jewish people and the differences in covenant roles between Jews and Gentles do not actually make Jewish people better than Gentiles nor does it make Jews more loved, cared for, or more privileged in the eyes of God than Gentile believers. This would seem to all be evident from Paul's statement here:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. -Galatians 3:26-28

Paul isn't eliminating the distinctive differences between Jew and Gentile any more than he's eliminating the distinctive differences between men and women. He is saying though that God doesn't favor the Jewish people in His love over the Gentile any more than He favors men in His love over women.

In other words, I, as a Gentile, am loved by God every bit as much as a Jewish believer. God does not consider me a Jew but neither does He consider me a "second-class citizen" in the Kingdom of God. The question is, does any Jewish person in the MJ/BE movement consider Gentiles to a inferior and further, does MJ/BE encourage this impression?

It's hard to say. When you are only defined by your limitations rather than any positive qualities you may possess, it's difficult to understand how you are viewed by the Jewish leadership and congregation around you (assuming you're a Gentile who belongs to, or at least attends, an MJ/BE congregation).

MJ/BE proponents chafe when Gentiles begin to complain about how we are depicted as negatives and we are told to accept our lot in life happily. If we don't, we're accused of various and sundry behaviors such as envy, racism, and lack of faith. In a sense though, that's like accusing a person who is critical of President Obama's policies of racism just because the President is African-American. Is the President "criticism-proof" on the basis if race? Can I not be critical of the MJ/BE movement, or at least some aspects of it, for any reason other than "racism"? Can I not request that MJ/BE explain their statements more fully, especially if they somehow expect me to comply to their "requests" out of "respect"? I've been accused of "straw man" arguments in the past, but in this particular instance, I think the shoe is on the other foot.

Here's what would help.

MJ/BE proponents are attempting to convince Jewish and Gentile elements in related fragments of "the movement" (One Law, Two-House, and other forms of Messianic Judaism) of the correctness of the MJ/BE perspective and the error of everyone else's view point. If MJ/BE wants to be at least listened to if not actually heard, it might be helpful if they took a more even approach to their presentation. MJ/BE is very good at defining who is Jewish within their context but extremely poor at defining Gentiles in a way that would make any Gentile anywhere want to be a part of their framework.

What would help would be for MJ/BE proponents to define the Gentiles in their midst in terms of their contributions to the community of faith (beyond the mere financial offerings, which only serve to make people feel their only worth is material, with no spiritual components involved). Is MJ/BE able to say why God gives a rip about non-Jews and deliberately has grafted them in to the same Olive Tree as the natural branches, side-by-side, so to speak? If MJ/BE could do that, they might actually get other people to listen to them rather than argue with them and they might avoid the appearance of being elitist. When pressed, MJ/BE can extend itself in this direction, but it's a bit like trying to pull a horse's teeth:

James, Gentiles can GIVE everything that Jews can give. They can teach (although matters pertaining to Jewish issues / Torah / education of Jewish children, preparations for Bar Mitzva should be taught by Jews), visit the sick, tend to the widows and orphans, give to the poor (all poor, and especially the poor of Israel - per NT precedent), share the Good News of the Kingdom with everyone, etc. and etc. I can go on! -Gene Shlomovich

Keep in mind that I don't think that MJ/BE has the ultimate interpretation of the Bible at their fingertips and I don't believe that any one group has a 100% correct insight into the meaning of God's Word and Will. I do believe that we all, each and every one of us, struggle all our lives to find our place with God, as we journey step-by-step on the path of righteousness. I believe that each person individually negotiates his or her relationship with God. We all have individual paths to walk and no two people walk the same road. We also are each at different points in our roads, relative to closeness to God, understanding, insight, and faith, so developmentally, no two people are at the same spiritual level.

Also, keep in mind that we continue to labor under the weight of just a ton of tradition and interpretation in our worship lives which sometimes gets in the way of seeing each other. This is probably why no two MJ congregations are exactly alike. One may pattern themselves on the Orthodox and another on Conservative or Reform movements. Naturally, each one will think their interpretation is "better" and maybe even more "Jewish", but then, what did all this look like at the time of Yeshua or in the day of Moses, when the two tablets brought down from Sinai were still warm with the freshness of God's finger upon them?

All monotheistic religious forms invariably drift from source, at least a little, over time. We can see this in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (after all Sharia Law is more an interpretation of ancient Arabic tribal laws and less anything you'll find in the Koran). While each congregation is within their rights to choose their tradition, it's a mistake for them to apply their tradition as the only "rightness" onto individuals and communities outside their immediate confines.This accounts for the variability we see in different Messianic Jewish congregations (that are populated mainly by Jews) and explains that, to be a valid MJ, you don't necessarily have to be MJ/BE.

So who am I? First and foremost, I was made in the image of God and no person or group can take that way. Secondly, I am loved by God by virtue of my being a human being and am accepted into the Commonwealth of Faith by the blood of Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah. I can consider Yeshua my shepherd. My prayers are heard by God and Yeshua is my intercessor, sitting at His right hand. I have the intelligence and skill sets that God gave me and those are not devalued because of my ethnicity nor because my covenant standing with God is different (not better or worse) than the Jewish people.

Here's another way to put it. I heard a story once:

Many years ago, there was a very learned Rabbi who would periodically take a trip on his donkey to another town to converse and exchange knowledge with other Rabbis in his region. He had a reputation for being particularly intelligent and a skilled debater, often proving his peers and contemporaries in error on some Talmudic interpretation. He was on his way back home from one of these conferences one day, when he saw a figure in the distance walking towards him. As the figure drew closer, the Rabbi was able to make out he was a man and as the man came closer, he noticed that the man was greatly deformed. Aghast and without meaning to, as the man came up alongside the Rabbi's donkey about to pass, the Rabbi blurted out, "What a hideous person!" He was immediately embarrassed by his outburst but the deed was done and could not be taken back. The deformed man stopped, turned, and looked up at the Rabbi. The Rabbi was well known in the area and the deformed man immediately recognized him. In a slow, soft voice, the man replied, "If you don't like the way I look Rabbi, take it up with my Creator."

This is an actual Rabbinic tale I read once, but I cannot recall its source. I do not tell this story to put down anyone, but to illustrate that, if I am different from you in any way, it doesn't mean that I'm worse than you or inferior than you...it just means I'm different. If you don't like the fact that I'm different, take it up with my Creator. He's the one who made me who I am. I'm only responsible for what I do with what He created.

Comparisons

I always have to be reading something. During my lunch hour from work, I walk ten minutes to the main branch of the Boise Public Library and spend the time in a quiet corner (when I can find one) reading. A few days ago, I was looking for some books for my wife (she gave me a list) and I came across Bruce Chilton's Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography. Apparently, Chilton has written enough that he's gotten his own wee page at Wikipedia, so I won't go over his bio in any detail here. I always find it interesting when non-Jewish Christian (I guess that's an assumption, because Chilton's bio doesn't actually say he's a believer) authors take on the Jewishness of New Testament figures and not attempt to remove the Jewishness replacing the Jew with a Gentile figure.

I'm only a couple of chapters into the book and may write a full review later, but so far, Chilton paints Paul as an intriguing young man and opens up the world of first century Judaism to his audience. However, his continual references to Paul's "conversion" on the road to Damascus makes my spider-sense tingle. How can you acknowledge the Jewishness of Paul, have written a book called Rabbi Jesus, apparently affirming the Jewishness of the Messiah, and still say that a Jewish man had to "convert" in order to worship the Jewish Messiah?

Compare that picture to the book I started reading last night, Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People  by Mark Kinzer, which says, in part, that Judaism and Christianity are not two separate religions and further says Christianity is an extension of Israel's worship of God. I'm only into Chapter 1 of the Kinzer book and plan to read both works in parallel, Chilton's book at the library and Kinzer's book at home. In order to crystallize the points of the Kinzer book for my review, I am finding it necessary to write copious notes as I read, which is easier in front of a computer in my home office, since I keyboard much faster than I can write with pencil and paper.

My first impression of the Kinzer book is that it's not as automatically Gentile despising as I had been lead to believe and actually says its purpose is to heal the schism between Messianic Judaism and the Christian church. I was frankly amazed by that statement since the proponents of Messianic Judaism/Bilateral Ecclesiology (MJ/BE), who seem to claim Kinzer's book as the template for their theology, strive to convince me that I must completely divorce myself from any Jewish or Hebraic context and thought and return forthwith to the Christian church, maintaining a polite and discrete distance from all things MJ/BE.

I'm putting all this in rather blunt language and there are subtleties that somewhat modify the reality of the MJ/BE representatives I've encountered, making the transactions not quite as hostile as you might imagine, but Kinzer's message (so far), seems to be one where he's talking to me, not at me.

Keep in mind, I can make no assumptions about Kinzer personally. All I have is his book and I've only read the Introduction and part of the first chapter, so I've much more material to cover. So far though, it doesn't seem as if he is trying to push Gentile believers away from him, his ideas, and his perspective.

In reading both Chilton's and Kinzer's books together, I do get two different pictures of my faith. Chilton seems to affirm that somewhere in Paul's experience as a Jewish Rabbi, he creates a new, separate religion that eventually is called Christianity. While Chilton works to present a picture of Paul's life as a Jew, raised in the diaspora, educated in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, and eventually pursuing the Messianic community under the authority of Caiaphas, he takes the traditional Christian view. Paul becomes something else besides a Jewish Rabbi, though built on top of his Jewish foundation, when he actually encounters the Messiah and proceeds in his later life as the Messiah's emissary to the Gentile pagans in the world around him.

Compare that to Kinzer's stated purpose in the book he's written specifically for Christians, as showing a Judaism growing from its chosen status by God and the church, growing as an extension of that Jewish faith, as a branch growing from a tree. Paul wouldn't be converting to Christianity at all, would remain wholly and completely Jewish in his faith and relationship to the Messiah, and would be introducing the God of the Jews to the Gentile nations.

I'll keep reading and render my reports periodically, but one thing that this comparison shows me so far is that Chilton's work promotes a separation between church and (Messianic) synagogue far more effectively than does Kinzer. If anything, at least as of part way through chapter 1 of his book, Kinzer seems to actually be trying to get Gentiles to learn more about how Messianic Jews see Yeshua/Jesus.