Tag Archives: FFOZ

Uncategorized

The Uncircumcised Convert, Part 2

4 Comments

mikveh-project“Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

–Acts 10:47-48 (ESV)

When Simon Peter heard the Gentiles speaking in the languages and saw that they had received the Spirit just as he and the other Jewish believers had, he could no longer theologically exclude them from participation in the kingdom or discipleship. (see Acts 10:47-48) They had not gone through a legal conversion to become Jewish, nor had they been circumcised. They were still Gentiles, yet they had experienced the Spirit of God, just as the Jewish believers had.

Simon Peter explained to the six men that had accompanied him from Joppa, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” By skipping circumcision and going directly to immersion, Simon Peter inverted the process by which a Gentile might ordinarily become a disciple of Yeshua. Prior to that occasion, he and the other disciples required a Gentile to first submit to conversion/circumcision. Immersion could follow later.

Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Vayeshev (“And he dwelt”) (pg 235)
Commentary on Acts 9:32-11:18

If you haven’t done so already, please read Part 1 of this commentary before continuing here.

This is the second time in his commentary on Acts 10 that Lancaster suggests Peter or the other Jewish apostles may have previously converted Gentiles to Judaism by first having them circumcised and then entering them into Jesus discipleship. As I mentioned in Part 1, I can’t think of any record in the Bible that points in this direction. I do note however, that Philip also did not require the Ethiopian eunuch to be circumcised prior to immersion. However, that more than likely means the eunuch was Jewish (and did not need to convert) since Luke makes no point of the eunuch being a Gentile as he does of Cornelius (although as previously mentioned, there are a number of assumptions in play).

What Lancaster says regarding circumcision and conversion of Gentiles does fit nicely into Shaye J.D. Cohen’s opinion (see his book, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Second Edition) of how Gentiles were made into Jewish disciples as I mentioned in another commentary.

However, as the history of Israel progressed, the concept of conversation to Judaism for the Gentile began to become more formalized. Cohen cites three essential elements of conversion to Judaism: belief in God, circumcision, and joining the house of Israel. Again, this is a definition of a convert to Judaism, not conditions required for the Gentile to join “the Way” as disciples of Christ. Cohen even references the difference:

For Paul, circumcision represents subjugation to the demands of the Torah (Gal. 3-5).

In other words, while Paul did not see circumcision and thus full obedience to the mitzvot as a requirement for the Gentile Christians, he did see it as a necessary step for full conversion to Judaism. The natural conclusion then is that a Gentile becoming a disciple of the Jewish Messiah in the time of Paul was not the same as a Gentile converting to Judaism.

Another indication that Gentiles entering into Jesus discipleship were not converting to Judaism is found in the aftermath of Peter’s experience with Cornelius.

Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

–Acts 11:1-3 (ESV)

This wasn’t exactly a friendly inquiry on the part of Peter’s fellow Jewish apostles.

Rumors of his (Peter’s) activities among the Gentiles preceded him. It did not take long for word of Simon’s Peter’s theological leap and halachic faux pas to reach the rest of the Judean apostolic community. The inclusion of the Samaritans had been controversial enough. Simon’s fraternization with Gentiles raised astonishment and disbelief.

No one objected to Gentiles joining the assembly of Yeshua so long as they first went through a proper conversion, but according to the rumor, that had not happened. People were even saying that Simon Peter had entered the home of the Roman soldier, eaten with him, and invited him to immerse for the name of Yeshua.

Such an association of Gentiles with Jews, and the Gentiles being allowed into discipleship within a Jewish sect without first converting to Judaism, must have seemed outrageous to the Jewish apostolic community in Jerusalem. Luke points out in verse 2 that “circumcision party criticized him,” meaning the people present were Jews, either people born Jewish or converts to Judaism. A Jew eating with a Gentile was a violation of halachah. Lichtenstein in “Commentary on the New Testament” on Acts 11:3 considers this matter further.

“You went to uncircumcized men and ate with them” (Acts 11:3). This does not present a difficulty, for Cornelius was a God-fearer and certainly had kosher food. And the objection of the circumcised men is only about [Peter’s] approaching uncircumcised men and eating with them, for Jews were forbidden to approach a foreigner.

-Lancaster, pg 236

Cohen might not entirely agree with Lichtenstein, since he believes God-fearers were still polytheists, integrating the God of Israel into a panthenon of other “gods.” However, it is quite likely that Peter and the six Jews in his company would not have eaten with Cornelius unless the food was kosher and there’s nothing to say, Cohen aside, that Cornelius must have been polytheistic.

ancient-rabbi-teachingIn his defense, Peter and the other Jews who accompanied him recounted the events that occurred prior to entering the Roman’s home and what happened once Peter engaged Cornelius, including the giving of the Spirit to the Gentiles. (see Acts 11:4-17) Fortunately, upon hearing the explanation, the other apostles understood the graciousness of God, even to the Gentiles.

When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

–Acts 11:18 (ESV)

Lancaster presents his final interpretation of the “Cornelius event,” raising another interesting question.

The apostolic leadership accepted Simon Peter’s testimony and the corroboration offered by the six men from Joppa. The were forced to concede that Sinon had acted properly in setting aside the halachah about the uncleanness of Gentiles. More than that, they realized that God accepted the Gentiles into the kingdom. They did not determine whether or not the new Gentile believers should be encouraged to remain God-fearers or go on to full conversion. They only determined that they should receive Gentile brethern without objection as fellow disciples and heirs of the kingdom.

Uncertain of what else to make of the situation, they blessed God.

-Lancaster, pg 237

As we can see, both from the text in Acts and in Lancaster’s interpretation, the early Jewish apostles struggled to understand how to integrate the Gentile disciples into the Jewish Messianic community. The realization that Gentiles may not have to convert to Judaism (and according to Lancaster, at this point the jury was still out on this matter) in order to become disciples was revolutionary. All other sects of Judaism who were actively pursuing Gentiles as disciples required that the Gentiles convert to Judaism as a matter of course. In other words, it was a “no brainer.” Only in the Jesus sect was the method of entering Gentiles into a Jewish sect still something of a question mark. God didn’t just flip some sort of “spiritual switch” and suddenly, all of the apostles “just knew” what to do with the Gentiles and what it all meant.

But if the Gentiles didn’t have to convert; if they didn’t have to accept circumcision, then how was Torah and halachah to be applied to them? As we saw above, Paul and Cohen’s commentary on Paul understand that conversion to Judaism and circumcision meant the Gentiles would be fully obligated to the Torah mitzvot. As of the events in Acts 11 that question hadn’t even been brought up let alone answered. The apostles had no idea what was coming next. Neither did Cornelius and his household or any other Gentiles who subsequently became disciples.

It will be weeks before Lancaster’s Torah Club commentary addresses the events in Acts 15 which presumably will answer these questions. I hope you are looking forward to the future revelations of Volume 6 of the Torah Club as much as I am.

Uncategorized

The Uncircumcised Convert, Part 1

5 Comments

corneliusAnd he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me.”

–Acts 10:28-29 (ESV)

Simon Peter still had no idea why he had been called to Caesarea. The notion of Gentile inclusion in the kingdom had not occurred to him. Though the Master had told the apostles to “make disciples of all the nations” and to witness on His behalf “even to the remotest part of the earth,” He had never implied that this might mean accepting Gentiles as Gentiles (see Matthew 28:19; Acts 1:8). Simon naturally assumed that any Gentiles entering the kingdom and taking on the yoke of discipleship would necessarily convert to become Jewish first.

Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Vayeshev (“And he dwelt”) (pp 231-2)
Commentary on Acts 9:32-11:18

I don’t know where D. Thomas Lancaster discovered that bit of information about Peter in his commentary on Acts 10 or even if it’s simply an interesting opinion, but if true, then it begs the question, did Peter or any of the other apostles actually convert a Gentile to Judaism as part of the process of making disciples of Yeshua (Jesus) from the nations? As far as I’m aware, there’s no record in the New Testament prior to Acts 10 of the apostles converting a Gentile to Judaism, or allowing a Gentile to enter into the kingdom without conversion in the context of Jesus discipleship. The thousands we see coming to faith in the Jewish Messiah in Acts 2 and later are almost certainly all Jews. For that matter, what do we know of the Ethiopian eunuch encountered by the apostle Philip prior to Peter being summoned by Cornelius?

And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah.

–Acts 8:27-28 (ESV)

The Ethiopian eunuch is sometimes considered the first Gentile convert (E.g., Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.1.13). That seems unlikely. Luke makes no issue about his non-Jewish status as he does regarding Cornelius in Acts 10. Ethiopia was home to a continuous Jewish presence from the days of Solomon up until the modern era. Beta Israel Jews, also known as Ethiopian Jews, claim Jewish ancestry reaching back to the Solomonic Era. One may safely assume that an Ethiopian who went to the trouble of making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to worship the LORD in His Temple was Jewish. Luke says, “He had come to Jerusalem to worship” (Acts 8:27). The eunuch had traveled a great distance to reach Jerusalem, more than a month’s travel time. He had probably come to attend one of the pilgrimage festivals. While in Jerusalem, he purchased several Greek versions of the scrolls of the prophets – reading material for the trip home.

Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Vayetze (“And he went out”) (pp 176-7)
Commentary on Acts 8:1-40

I think we have to accept that Lancaster is making some assumptions here, as he says, but they are certainly compelling assumptions. Luke indeed makes “no big deal” of the Ethiopian eunuch’s conversion to the “Jesus sect” but draws a tremendous amount of attention to Cornelius and his household of Gentiles when they receive the Holy Spirit.

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.

–Acts 10:44-45 (ESV)

Peter and his Jewish companions were astonished that the Gentiles could also receive the Holy Spirit while Philip…but wait. Did the Ethiopian eunuch receive the Spirit during his encounter with Philip?

And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

–Acts 8:34-39 (ESV)

Immediately after rising from the water, Philip is taken away by the Spirit, but there is no mention at all of the Ethiopian eunuch receiving the Spirit as did Cornelius and his household in Acts 10 or the apostles in Acts 2. Of course in Acts 10 the Gentiles received the Spirit (verse 44) and then were baptized in water (verse 48). Did the Ethiopian eunuch receive the Spirit prior to immersion and the event was simply not mentioned by Luke?

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

–Acts 2:37-41 (ESV)

philip_and_the_ethiopianNotice that Peter tells his Jewish audience that to receive forgiveness of sins, they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, but when Luke describes the results in verse 41, he only says, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” He doesn’t say that after they received his (Peter’s) word, they received the Spirit and then were baptized. It’s possible, given that these were Jews being discussed, Luke assumed his readership would know that they received the Spirit based on verses 1-4. That same thought process might have been in use when Luke describes the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. However this is just guess-work on my part.

But while the Jews who received the good news of the Moshiach in Acts 2 came to faith in Jesus but did not have to convert to Judaism (and arguably, neither did the Ethiopian eunuch), what about Cornelius and his household in Acts 10? If Lancaster’s assumption is correct, Peter should have expected Gentiles to convert to Judaism as a part of becoming disciples of the Jewish Messiah.

I mentioned in a previous meditation that Shaye J.D. Cohen in his book, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Second Edition said it was not uncommon for those from the various sects of late Second Temple era Judaism to make converts from the Gentiles including the God-fearers. If Peter expected, as did the other Judaisms of his day, that Gentiles would have to convert to Judaism in order to enter into discipleship, then he should have had Cornelius and the other male God-fearers present circumcised as part of the conversion process.

When Simon Peter heard the Gentiles speaking in the languages and saw that they had received the Spirit just as he and the other Jewish believers had, he could no longer theologically exclude them from participation in the kingdom or discipleship. (see Acts 10:47-48) They had not gone through a legal conversion to become Jewish, nor had they been circumcised. They were still Gentiles, yet they had experienced the Spirit of God, just as the Jewish believers had.

Simon Peter explained to the six men that had accompanied him from Joppa, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” By skipping circumcision and going directly to immersion, Simon Peter inverted the process by which a Gentile might ordinarily become a disciple of Yeshua. Prior to that occasion, he and the other disciples required a Gentile to first submit to conversion/circumcision. Immersion could follow later.

-Lancaster, pg 235

This presentation on Lancaster’s Torah Club commentary went longer than I originally planned, so I’m splitting it into two parts. Please join me tomorrow for the second and final part in Monday’s “morning meditation.”

Uncategorized

50 Days: Lessons in Acts and Patience

2 Comments

Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”

And the high priest said, “Are these things so?”

–Acts 6:9-14, 7:1 (ESV)

When Caiaphas asked Stephen “Are these charges true,” he in effect asked, “Are you and your sect speaking against Moses, against the Torah, and against the Temple?

The charges were serious, and the trial had ramifications for the entire Yeshua (Jesus) sect (of Judaism). As a community leader over the assembly of Yeshua’s disciples, Stephen represented the beliefs of the whole community. If the court found him guilty of blasphemy or apostasy, they might turn against the whole sect.

Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Toldot (“Generations”) (pp 141, 143)
Commentary on Acts 7:1-60

Last Sunday, at the local church I attend, Pastor Randy’s sermon, as he covers the book of Acts, was specifically on Acts 7:1-19. Since the portion of Acts covered by Volume 6 of the Torah club for this coming week’s Torah reading is Acts 7, I thought it would be a good opportunity to compare what is being taught about Stephen and his defense to the Sanhedrin in my church vs. FFOZ’s viewpoint on the same event to see the similarities and differences. I didn’t get what I was looking for. Here’s why as outlined in the printed conclusions of the Pastor’s sermon last week:

Conclusion: Stephen’s sermon helps us to remember…

  1. The sovereign activity of God in choosing people, places, and timing in all things.
  2. The sovereign, abundant grace of God toward rebellious sinners always.
  3. The danger of hardening our hearts against God’s grace.
  4. The error of going through outward motions where our hearts are far from God.

While D. Thomas Lancaster in his Torah club study and Pastor Randy in his sermon series are covering identical material from Acts, the purpose and focus in each of their teachings are not at all the same. Lancaster is addressing the issue of whether or not the charges against Stephen were true; was he really speaking against Moses, the Torah, and the Temple as he had been accused of? Pastor Randy, on the other hand, was using Stephen’s “sermon” (it was actually a legal defense and not a “sermon” as we understand the term in the church) as an illustration of God’s grace and mercy to sinners who repent and turn back to God.

Kind of like trying to compare apples and oranges.

Maybe that’s a good thing, because the Sunday school class I go to after services addresses (though tangentially) the content of the lesson from the Pastor. What if the Sunday school teacher asked if the charges against Stephen were true and I answered based on Lancaster?

Of course, the allegations were not true, but was there any basis at all to the charges?

Stephen presented a pro-Temple, pro-Torah apologetic which, in essence, affirmed his orthodoxy within normative Judaism. He cited the biblically based origin for the authority of Moses and the Torah, and he told the story of the origin of the Temple. He went on to make a case for Yeshua, declaring Him to be the “prophet like Moses” who, like Moses himself, suffered His people’s rejection. In the same way, he drew in the Temple theme as he pointed out that Israel’s historical compromises with paganism contrasted against the sanctity of the true Temple. By the end of his defense, he turned the tables around. The accused became the accuser. He claimed that just as the nation of Israel historically rejected Moses, broke the Torah, and compromised with idolatry, the Jewish leadership had committed a similar crime by rejecting the appointed Messiah. (Lancaster, pg 143)

Notice that Lancaster says that Stephen accused the “Jewish leadership” of rejecting the appointed Messiah, not the “Jewish people.” Since thousands upon thousands of Jews in Jerusalem had accepted Jesus as the Messiah in the weeks and months following Pentecost, it would be very difficult to say that the Jews en masse had rejected Jesus.

Lancaster says that the charges against Stephen were absolutely false, but we tend to hear a different message in Christianity (although no such message was presented in last week’s sermon at my church):

Commentators regard it…as an ironic twist that the so-called “false charges” were actually true. For example, F.F. Bruce (from Bruce’s book, “The Book of Acts,” 1988, pg 126) says, “They are called ‘false witnesses’ because, although their reports had a basis of truth, anyone who testifies against a spokesman of God is ipso facto a false witness.” Numerous Christian commentaries insist that, contrary to what Luke tells us, the witnesses were not really false nor were their allegations really lies. From a traditional Christian point of view, Stephen must have taught against the Temple with its obsolete sacrifices, against the Torah with its cancelled ceremonial laws, and against the customs, i.e., the traditions of men. (Lancaster, pg 142)

Remember that I said not too long ago, quoting Pastor Jacob Fronczak’s article, The Five Solas: Sola Scriptura:

Even with the Masoretic traditions, though, many English readings of the Scripture can be divined from a single Hebrew text. Translation committees have to pick one. Many times readings are chosen to emphasize some Messianic prophecy which appears to point to Jesus Christ, while a Jewish translation committee might choose a different readings for the exact opposite reason. Both readings might be technically correct. However doctrinal presuppositions dictate which reading is chosen. In effect, then, when Christians have only an English Bible and no other tools, they are completely unable to interact with the Scripture – the original Greek and Hebrew texts. They are completely dependent on the work of the translator.

If our doctrinal presuppositions dictate how a passage in scripture is rendered from its original language into English (or any other modern language), the same can be true for how we interpret scripture. Even reading the ESV Bible’s translation of Acts 7:1-60, there’s nothing in the plain meaning of the text that indicates Stephen must have been speaking against Moses, the Torah, and the Temple. In fact, the vast majority of his defense reads like a simple history lesson, compressing the relevant sections of the Tanakh (Old Testament) into a few paragraphs. Stephen doesn’t appear to be denigrating the Jewish Torah and traditions but rather defending them. He only accuses the Sanhedrin of going against the Torah and teachings of Moses, in violation of what Jesus himself taught and defended.

You can see why I might be a little hesitant to speak up in Sunday school later today as I did last week.

It’s another Sunday (as you read this) and church services start at 9:30 this morning. I’ll be there again, and I’ll go to Sunday school again, and I don’t really know what I’m going to say or do. Hopefully, nothing stupid, but there are no guarantees. I’ve said and done stupid things before, even when I knew better. Telling what I understand to be “the truth” is not always defensible if I know in advance that the result will be upsetting or harmful to others. Even if I chose to speak, I would have to do so in a way that was not accusatory or offensive to others.

There is a major difference between being critical, and having a positive influence on others by saying things with compassion and true caring. When you sound critical, the person on the receiving end is likely to deny your words, which will be perceived as an attack. And then you won’t accomplish anything.

-Rabbi Zelig Pliskin
“Daily Lift #634, Correct Without Being Critical”
Aish.com

So far, the only person at church who even knows this blog exists is Pastor Randy, and I don’t even know if he has visited here since our first meeting last week. Since it’s not likely anyone else at church knows I write these “morning meditations,” I’m more at liberty to express my thoughts and opinions here than I should be when in Sunday school.

Of course, this is only the second Sunday I will be back in church. I really need to learn to be more patient and not “shoot off my big mouth” just because the Sunday school teacher asks a question and no one answers. Silence isn’t always in invitation for me to “make noise” nor is it a reason to think that I can “correct” anyone else in their beliefs.

Maybe I should be paying more attention to what the Bible is telling me about what I need to do to make me a better person than what I think it says about making others better.

 

Uncategorized

Learning the Traditions of Our Fathers

4 Comments

Talmudic Rabbis“We keep the customs of our forefathers.”

–Shabbos 35b

The Gemara here notes that we keep the customs of our forefathers, even when the rationale behind the custom no longer applies. One such custom is the recitation of Kedushah in U’va LeTzion. Why do we repeat Kedushah if it has already been recited during Birkas Kri’as Shema and Chazaras HaShatz?

The origin of this recitation is recorded in Shibolei HaLeket (ch. 44). There was a time when the gentiles banned the Jews from reciting Kedushah and would send a representative to sit in shul through Chazaras HaShatz to guarantee that it was not recited. Once Chazaras HaShatz was completed, the representative felt confident that his job was finished and he would leave. Only later, when the gentiles left, were the Jews able to say Kedushah. They therefore inserted Kedushah into U’va Letzion, in Hebrew and Aramiac, to replace the two times they were not able to say Kedushah, in Birkas Kri’as Shema and Chazaras HaShatz. Although we are now able to say Kedushah without fear of being harmed by gentiles, we continue to recite Kedushah in U’va Letzion based upon the principle of “Minhag Avoseinu Biyadeinu” — “The custom of our forefathers remains in our hands.”

Daf Yomi Digest
Stories Off the Daf
“Keeping the customs of our fathers”
Commentary on Shabbos 35b

All denominations or sects of Christianity of which I’m aware have a problem with the relationship between religious Judaism and its traditions and customs. As we see from a Christian point of view, the function of traditions in Judaism seems to exceed what we would consider practical utility and common sense. Certainly all cultures and groups engage in various traditions and as such, there’s no problem in this, but why participate in a custom or tradition that has outlived its usefulness and may well (though not in this case) contradict the Word of God?

Christianity, and particularly the Protestant church, sees itself as relying solely on the Word of God as we have it in the Bible without the “traditions of men” getting in the way (Sola scriptura), while we tend to see Judaism as relying primarily on their traditions (which we see growing and growing, even when some of them have outlived their original purpose) as equal or even superior in authority to what God has said to Israel. But does that really reflect the reality of what we do (and you probably know where I’m going with this)?

To define sola scriptura without academic terminology might sound something like this: The Bible is the only authority in the believer’s life; it is never wrong about anything; it touches on every aspect of life; it needs no outside help to be correctly interpreted; it never disagrees with itself; it can be understood by anyone of average intelligence; and it applies to everyone in every situation.

I only use the example of translations to illustrate the fact that in a very practical sense, the Scriptures in their original languages are, for most Christians, not enough – tools such as translations, concordances, the Masoretic vowel points, and commentaries are required in order to understand the text. Of course, the goal is to understand the original text, which in itself is not an objection to the doctrine of sola scriptura – until one realizes that every translation, every commentary, and even the textual tradition itself are all based on traditions along with the divine written revelation. It is simply impossible to get away from these traditions and study the Bible in isolation.

-Jacob Fronczak
“The Five Solas: Sola Scriptura”
Messiah Journal, Issue 111 (pp 47, 52)

If you read my recent blog post, Chayei Sarah: Oil for the Lamp, you recognize the quotes from Pastor Fronczak. You also remember the meaning behind those words: that Catholic and Protestant Christianity does not understand what the Bible is saying apart from our own traditions. That is to say, no one of us has raw, unfiltered, unmediated, uncommentaried access to anything the Bible is telling us. We all read the Bible while wearing the moral and intellectual equivalent of “rose-colored glasses.”

Not only do we find that we must accept the wisdom of the “traditions of the Christian elders,” but we must also accept the wisdom of the “traditions of the Jewish elders.” Why?

Consider the Old Testament. About two-thirds of the Christian Bible is made up of the Old Testament. Who wrote the Old Testament? Jews (It’s important to realize that Jews also wrote the New Testament, but that’s a discussion for another time).

The organization of books, chapters, verses, and insertion of vowels and punctuation all come from Jewish sources, and have been altered very little if at all by Christian translators in most cases. Without realizing it, the vast majority of Christians, when reading nearly any part of the Old Testament, are tacitly accepting Jewish tradition in how it is translated and presented to us.

Right now, you might be saying, “So what. I still believe the Bible is the highest written authority and no Rabbi, Pastor, or scholar is going to have an opinion or judgment that overrides scripture.” Well, that’s not exactly true.

Translating dead languages (ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are all dead languages and only somewhat associated with the modern-day “living” counterparts) into the land of the living so that English speakers (for example) can read the Bible is no small thing and it’s hardly an exact science. The art of Biblical analysis and translation is highly specialized and it’s not a matter of simply saying, Word A in Hebrew means word B in English.

Even with the Masoretic traditions, though, many English readings of the Scripture can be divined from a single Hebrew text. Translation committees have to pick one. Many times readings are chosen to emphasize some Messianic prophecy which appears to point to Jesus Christ, while a Jewish translation committee might choose a different readings for the exact opposite reason. Both readings might be technically correct. However doctrinal presuppositions dictate which reading is chosen. In effect, then, when Christians have only an English Bible and no other tools, they are completely unable to interact with the Scripture – the original Greek and Hebrew texts. They are completely dependent on the work of the translator.

-Fronczak (pg 52)

Let’s go through that again. Two separate translations of the Hebrew (or Greek) text can both be technically correct, but actually render opposite meanings, depending on the doctrinal presuppositions of the translation committees involved.

I’d love to just copy and paste the entire text of Fronczak’s article into this blog post because I think every Christian (and Jew) should read it, but that’s highly impractical. You’ll just have to purchase a copy of Messiah Journal to read all of his write up (and even if you disagree with Fronczak, you’ll still have to read the complete content in order to craft a rebuttal that contains any validity at all).

But beyond apparently trying to shoot down the doctrine of sola scriptura, why am I bothering to write this and why should you care?

The vast majority of Christians do not interact with the rabbinic tradition at all. As a consequence, it is poorly understood and even attacked. Modern Jews have not forgotten the Christians who burned copies of the Talmud in Europe. Even many in the Hebrew roots movement disparage the teachings of the rabbis and ancient sages, without realizing that in many ways, we rely on these very teachings in order to interpret the Bible.

First Fruits of Zion has been vehemently attacked for this very reason – we rely on rabbinic traditions and other extra-biblical literature to illuminate and explain the text of the Scripture. Like any reputable translation committee or research institution would do, we consider a lot of evidence before coming to a conclusion on what a Bible passage means. Unfortunately, people who do not understand the importance and usefulness of this literature continue to disparage the ministry of First Fruits of Zion, even though they, as explained above, are equally reliant on traditions and extra-biblical evidence for their own interpretations of the Scripture. The continuing attacks on traditional Jewish literature such as the Talmud and Zohar betray anti-Judaic and perhaps even an anti-Semitic spirit on the part of many of our detractors.

-Fronczak (pg 53)

The focus of my point for this blog post and for the existence of my blog in general, overlaps Fronczak’s and First Fruits of Zion’s (FFOZ’s) message, but my overall scope is beyond the confines of Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Roots (and all of the variants those two groups contain). This is a message that should concern every Christian and every church, regardless of denomination or affiliation. We all share a common Bible (relative to translation), a common Jesus, and a common God. The origin of the core faith in Christ of the church can be traced directly back to ancient Israel and the Second Temple period, and the origin of everything Jesus taught as we have it recorded in the New Testament, every bit of it, travels deeply back into the Old Testament, to David, to Moses, to Jacob, Issac, and Abraham, and indeed, back to before Adam and the creation of the world by God. Not one word of what Jesus said wasn’t Jewish, nor was any of it disconnected from the Jewish reality of the Bible.

Add to that the fact that we in the church rely just as much on our traditions (and some Jewish traditions) to understand all of what God is saying, and we have a very poor case for tearing apart Jewish reliance upon tradition to understand themselves and God.

It is really, really important to view the struggle of Christianity trying to comprehend Judaism as not a specialized or niche perspective or movement. It’s not just for those few people who are affiliated with those entities we call “Messianic Judaism” or “Hebrew Roots.” This is the struggle, the mission, the challenge for everyone who calls themselves a Christian.

If the church has any hope of understanding itself, it (we) must come to terms with not only where we came from, but the people and nation God granted the ability to give us life in Him, the Jews. We cannot afford to keep living in an isolated silo pretending that those connections are forever severed or relating to our “Jewish roots” as if the last 2,000 years of Jewish and Christian history, culture, custom, and tradition simply never happened.

Not long ago, I wrote another blog post called Intersection. There are a small group of Christians and Jews who are approaching a point of intersection where we going to realize we are, in some mysterious or even mystic way, interdependent on one another for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (which has nothing to do with “going to Heaven” and everything to do with enacting and progressing God’s plan for humanity on Earth). What may now appear as minority religious groups, variant Christian and Jewish sects, and even (Heaven forbid) cults, may well actually be part of the resurgence, the restoration, and the re-establishment of God’s intentions and design for His people Israel and the other nations of the Earth.

I believe when those Jewish and Christian people arrive at the intersection, this will happen.

“Thus says the Lord of hosts: Peoples shall yet come, even the inhabitants of many cities. The inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, ‘Let us go at once to entreat the favor of the Lord and to seek the Lord of hosts; I myself am going.’ Many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts: In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’”

–Zechariah 8:20-23

No, I don’t believe Christians will be turned into Jews or Jews will be turned into Christians (and a Jew being Messianic is not the same as being “Christian” as we comprehend the concepts and lifestyles), but we will all flow to “the mountain of the house of the Lord” and the people of many nations will say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” (see Micah 4:1-2)

Many Christians, including those in the Hebrew Roots movement, are fond of quoting from Ephesians 2 (particularly verse 15) and saying that differences and distinctions between Jews and Christians were all obliterated (along with the Torah, Talmud, shabbat, Passover, and anything even remotely referring to a Jewish identity and life) in Christ, “nailed to the cross,” so to speak.

And yet the unity that we see described in Zechariah 8 and Micah 4 requires no melding into uniformity between Gentile and Jew in order to achieve the prophesied unity between Israel and the nations. What is required is a sense of humility and recognition, the humility to “take hold” of the tzitzit on the tallit of a Jew, and to ask him to guide us to the mountain of the house of the Lord, the holy Temple in Jerusalem (which apparently will exist again) so that even we non-Jewish disciples of the Jewish Messiah King may be taught his ways and walk in his paths. (Zechariah 8:23 “says take hold of the robe of a Jew.” Is that any Jew or only one, the firstborn son of Israel…Moshiach?)

We’re all doing our best right now to do that; to walk in his paths. But we can do better. We must do better. Let us hurry to the intersection and meet together, Christian and Jew, we who share the Messiah and honor the One God. Time is short. There’s a lot of work to be done, starting with learning how to listen to one another, and comprehend the wisdom of the customs of our fathers, both the Jewish and Christian fathers.

Uncategorized

Intersection

4 Comments

Due to the sin of murder the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed.

–Shabbos 33a

Maharal points out that man is distinct and loftier than all other creations. Only man is infused with a heavenly spirit from above. Similarly, the Beis HaMikdash is on a separate plateau in function and purpose above all other places on Earth.

Furthermore, man himself functions as a type of Beis HaMikdash, in that he carries the shechinah with him, and he serves as a vehicle from which kedushah emanates and spreads throughout the world.

This is the underlying principle which our Gemara is presenting. The taking of human life, aside from the tragic aspect of the personal loss, also represents a destruction of a human Beis HaMikdash. A person, while he lives, has the ability to accomplish worlds of achievement in the realm of kedushah and in the service of Hashem. With the loss of this life, this person’s contribution to the world in this regard has been ended.

Daf Yomi Digest
Gemara Gem
“The holy human”
Commentary on Shabbos 33a

This is a rather remarkable Jewish commentary from a Christian point of view. We Christians tend to believe that only we possess the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit” as a consequence of our faith in Jesus Christ. We tend to believe that no other people group or religious tradition, especially Judaism, has this concept, let alone possesses this reality.

But what if we’re wrong?

Here we see that the Jewish sage writing this believes that “only man is infused with a heavenly spirit from above.” And just as Christians believe that each of us is a Temple housing the Spirit of God, (see 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 1 Peter 2:5) the Rabbinic commentator states, “man himself functions as a type of Beis HaMikdash, in that he carries the shechinah with him, and he serves as a vehicle.”

For those among you who may not know, the Beis HaMikdash can refer to the Temple in Jerusalem (which currently doesn’t exist) or the Heavenly Temple.  In the days of Solomon,  the Temple housed the shechinah or the Divine Presence, which Christian Bibles call “the glory of God” (this is also true of the Tabernacle in the days of Moses). While we can’t make a direct comparison between the shechinah and the Holy Spirit, we see that both Christian and Jewish concepts of how God “indwells” the faithful are all but identical.

Imagine that.

But why do I say such a thing and why should you care?

Shmuel only crossed a river on a bridge together with a gentile. He said that misfortune would not occur to two nations simultaneously.

–Shabbos 32a

Shmuel crossed the river only on a ferry boat upon which gentiles were riding with him. He determined that the Destroyer cannot punish Jew and gentile together, so he would be safe and secure that the boat would not capsize.

-Daf Yomi Digest commentary

This is a less than complimentary Jewish commentary about we Gentiles, since it implies God will not visit a tragedy upon the Jew that is going to occur to the non-Jew for the sake of the holiness of the Jewish people. It elevates the Jewish people above the other peoples of the earth in a spiritual way due to the perception of a Jew’s higher awareness of God. Actually, the commentary may well be true of many non-Jewish nations and people who neither fear Hashem nor honor the God of Israel.

But what about Christians? Can’t we be said to have an awareness of God through our devotion to Jesus, the Jewish Messiah? I would say “yes,” but we must remember that said-awareness and devotion originated with the Jewish people, and did not spring forth fully grown among the Gentiles, independent of Israel.

Many Christians reading this may get the wrong idea about what I’m trying to say. Some may even feel threatened, as if I’m subordinating Christianity to Judaism in a manner that makes we non-Jewish believers into “second-class citizens” in the Kingdom of God.

I’m not saying that at all.

But I do want to say that the church has a tendency to reverse causality. We often view Jesus as wholly owned and operated by Gentile Christianity and completely divorced from (if he was ever “married” to) Judaism in any way or form. That’s pretty tough to do since Jesus was born to a Jewish mother, was circumcised on the eighth day, was raised as a Jew, was granted the power of the Spirit as the Jewish Messiah, walked like a Jew, talked like a Jew, only had Jewish disciples, ordered his Jewish disciples to only minister to the “lost sheep of Israel” in only Jewish communities, barely spoke to a Gentile, and after death and resurrection, promised to return to establish Jewish self-rule of Israel and over the nations.

Tsvi Sadan, who authored what I consider a landmark book, The Concealed Light: Names of Messiah in Jewish Sources, wrote an article recently published in Messiah Journal, issue 111 called “You Have Not Obeyed Me in Proclaiming Liberty.” It’s a unique article in that it takes to task the missionary efforts of the church to convert Jews to Christianity. But Sadan is a “Jewish believer.” More accurately, he’s a “Messianic Jew” living in Israel, and that makes all the difference in the world.

What I have described up to this point means that much of what calls itself Messianic Judaism is in fact an exotic Christian sect. One can argue until blue in the face that the Israeli Supreme Court was wrong when in 1989 it ruled that Messianic Jews are people who belong to “another religion.”

I imagine that there are more than a few Christians reading this who are quite puzzled. After all, isn’t Messianic Judaism just another form of Christianity? What’s wrong with Jews converting to Christianity? Jesus is “Jewish,” isn’t he?

Of course, when most Christians say that “Jesus is Jewish,” it’s like how they view the occasional Jewish Christian in their church…someone who is Jewish in name only and who, in terms of any identity markers, has surrendered cultural, ethnic, experiential, and halalaic Judaism for a completely Gentile Christian identity and lifestyle. This is what I mean by reversing causality. In the early days of the ministries of Peter and Paul, masses of non-Jewish people came to be reconciled with the God of Israel through the Jewish Messiah, embracing religious practices and concepts that were completely Jewish and totally foreign to them. Today, we in the church expect Jews to abandon all of their Judaism and to worship a Lord and Savior who, from our point of view, is totally foreign to Jews.

But Sadan has more to say:

Yet the judges were no fools. Long ago the Jewish people reached a firm decision to reject the kind of good news described above. The refused the gospel which in the name of Jesus called them to convert to another religion. They refused the gospel which in the name of Jesus called them to break their unique covenant with God. They refused the gospel which forced them to identify with the culture of their oppressors. They refused the gospel which called them to compromise Jewish monotheism and reject the Talmud, their tradition, and their cherished customs.

That’s got to be a tough paragraph for most Christians to read and accept, but remember that I’m pulling it out of the context of the entire article. Sadan is criticising what I call “reversing causality.” Why should Jews have to stop being Jewish and join “another religion” (other than Judaism) in order to become disciples of the Jewish Messiah and to worship the God of Israel; a God they have been worshiping since the days of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses?

You’ll have to pick up a copy of Messiah Journal (and I highly encourage you to do so) and read Sadan’s entire write-up in order to fully comprehend where he’s coming from, but he does have a “happy ending” for how Jews can be authentically approached in order to be brought near to Moshiach and to return to the Torah.

For the sake of we Christian readers, he does quote from New Testament scholar Scot McKnight’s little-known book A New Vision for Israel (1999) in order to substantiate Sadan’s viewpoint from a Christian perspective.

The most important context in which modern interpreters should situate Jesus is that of ancient Jewish nationalism and Jesus’ conviction that Israel had to repent to avoid national disaster. Jesus’ hope was not so much the “Church” as the restoration of the twelve tribes…the fulfillment of the promises of Moses to national Israel, and the hope of God’s kingdom. (pg 10)

Definitely a book I need to read.

I don’t blame you if you think I’ve gone off the deep end or have lost my mind as a Christian. It’s taken me a very long time to see from this particular vantage point and it may take “the church” just as long or longer to reach the same spot. But I believe we’re all getting there. I know several Christian pastors who share my vision about the relationship between Jews and Christians. I believe that God is involved and guiding us along a series of paths on journeys that will finally intersect.

Jews and Christians have interactive purposes in relation to each other whereby, as children of God, we are interdependent. The Jewish role is to return to the Torah and to embrace the holiness of God and we in the church are responsible for standing alongside the Jew and supporting that…not “mission” but “keruv,” bringing Jews near “to God and to one another, first and foremost through familiarity with their own religion and tradition…the Jewish people, as taught be Jesus, cannot comprehend his message apart from Moses (John 5:46)…Keruv is all about reassuring the Jewish people that Jesus came to reinforce the hope for Jews as a people under a unique covenant.”

For hundreds of years, perhaps since the beginning of Creation, a piece of the world has been waiting for your soul to purify and repair it.

And your soul, from the time it was first emanated and conceived, waited above to descend to this world and carry out that mission.

And your footsteps were guided to reach that place.

And you are there now.

-Rabbi Tzvi Freeman
“Now”
Based on letters and talks of the Rebbe
Rabbi M. M. Schneerson
Chabad.org

The Christian “mission” isn’t just to “get saved” and then wait for the “bus to Heaven.” Although vitally important, it isn’t just spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to an unbelieving world, to give everyone, everywhere hope that God loves them and will never forsake them, even in the darkest nights of our souls. The Christian mission is also one of “keruv,” of bringing Jews to the Messiah in a way that is Jewish and in a way that would be completely recognizable to the apostles as they began their message to the Jewish people after the events recorded in Acts 2.

Keruv is probably not a task for all Christians. It’s probably not a task for me, at least not in a direct sense. But we can all participate by recognizing our role and the role of Israel and by welcoming and espousing the unique purpose, identity, and lives of Jewish Israel under their King and ours, Yeshua HaMashiach..Jesus the Christ.

For nearly twenty centuries, the people who Jesus drew to him, either directly or through the apostles, the Jewish people and the people of the nations, were first torn apart through much strife, and then continued to drift away from each other, one treating the other as strangers and aliens. While we may not experience it overtly today, the church and the synagogue in relation to each other are so wounded and isolated. Only by each one finding our true and unique purposes and roles in the kingdom of God can we both be healed, can we both be granted the gift of transmuting grief into joy, can we both have our loneliness be turned into joy and fellowship.

Uncategorized

62 Days: Going Back to Ekklesia

18 Comments

And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

–Acts 5:11 (ESV)

Acts 5:11 is the first time that Luke uses the word “ekklesia” to describe the community of disciples. Christians might be surprised to learn that the word “ekklesia” does not literally mean “church.” Biblical Greek has no word equivalent to our English word “church.” The word “ekklesia” translates the Biblical Hebrew word “Kahal.” Kahal means “assembly,” “congregation,” or “community.” The word ekklesia is interchangeable with “synagogue,” and it appears hundreds of times in the Greek version of the Tanach (Old Testament) to describe the congregation of the people of Israel.

from Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
Torah Portion Vayera (“And he appeared”) (pg 97)
Commentary on Acts 4:32-5:42
Produced by First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)

What?

Of course, I’ve heard that before, but maybe some of you reading this haven’t. My understanding of the word “ekklesia” is that it can be any collection of people who have gathered for a common purpose. It can as easily be a group of people who have gathered together for a riot or a lynch mob as to worship the God of Israel. A rather startling revelation for anyone who thought that “ekklesia” was a brand new word, something revolutionary for its time, the invention of the Christian church. (Only the Darby Bible Translation, World English Bible, and Young’s Literal Translation render “ekklesia” as “assembly” in Acts 5:11 according to Biblos.com. The other Bibles use the translation “church.”) D. Thomas Lancaster continues his Torah Club commentary on the subject.

By translating the term as “church,” our English Bibles have done us the great disservice of making us think of the church as an entity different, distinct, and outside of Judaism and the Jewish people. The “church” is not a New Testament innovation. When we read the word “church” in our English Bibles, we need to remember that it denotes the assembly of the messianic community within the larger Jewish nation, not something outside of Israel. (pg 97)

So, from Lancaster’s description, we see that the early “Christian church” of the Jewish disciples of Jesus was indeed not some new creation, but a continuation of the Jewish community that they had belonged to since the days when they were first called to follow the Messiah. It was a Jewish community no different from the other communities of the various sects of Judaism that were common in that day.

It almost makes it sound as if Christianity and Judaism are the same thing, but as I previously mentioned, in the modern era, Christians do not practice Judaism.

But our Christian faith was once very much a Judaism, as we see in the early chapters of Acts. I recently talked about this as well, but I’m sure you’re aware that a lot of water has flowed under that particular bridge, and we’ve been taken away from the foundations of the beginning of the Christian faith.

But during the time I’m discussing here, there was no “Christian faith” as we understand the concept. There was just another sect of Judaism that believed it was following the Jewish Messiah. That’s actually not incredibly unusual, as over the long centuries of Jewish history, there have been many would-be Messiahs who have attracted many followers. All those Messiahs and all of those followers have faded away…all except one.

But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”

–Acts 5:34-39 (ESV)

For nearly 20 centuries, there were no Jewish followers of Jesus, at least none who retained a Jewish ethnic, cultural, and religious identity and lifestyle. Even today, halakhically Jewish disciples of the Jewish Messiah are few in number. Many have abandoned their Jewish identities and have joined “the church,” and they are, for the most part, indistinguishable from the Gentile Christians around them. Some are in the synagogues today and quietly worship alongside their Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform brothers in Jewish community. Very few worship in authentic Messianic Jewish communities, mainly because such communities are extremely difficult to establish and maintain. The overwhelming majority of followers of Christ are Gentiles and they worship in the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Christian churches in this nation and around the world.

So I’m looking at trying to connect to a church, an “ekklesia,” although as we saw above, “ekklesia” doesn’t mean “church.” But modern convention says that “church” is the only place I have left to go if I want to be a part of the community of the body of Messiah (they’ll call him “Christ” of course).

If I were to print this blog post out and take it with me to my meeting with the Pastor this Saturday (I had to move the appointment time back one day), I wonder what he’d say? I wonder what the church’s board of directors would say if they read it? What would any of the church members say if they could read this commentary about “the church?” Would they find a kindred spirit in me at all, or only some “religious oddball?”

As far as the nature, meaning, and implication of the word “ekklesia” in relation to Acts 5:11 and the early community of disciples of Jesus, I’m not an “oddball” at all, but there’s 2,000 years of Christian culture to address. The “church” isn’t just the community of Christ in the 21st century, it is the collection of all of the doctrines, theologies, dogmas, and philosophies that have been incorporated into what it is to be a Christian and what Christians understand and believe.

Derek Leman’s recent blog post Congregation Lift: The Principle of Aiming High included the following:

In evangelical Christianity (and I was totally immersed as a student at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, where I got my B.A. in Bible and Theology) I found a principle I came to completely reject. It was the principle of aiming low. In church after church, chapel service after chapel service, the supreme height of Christianity was presented as “getting saved.” Christians lived for getting into heaven. Every sermon had to tell people how to gain access to the place of white clouds and harps. The “born again” experience, interpreted shallowly as “getting in,” was the be-all, end-all, the graduate degree of faith. Whenever deeper subjects came up (discipleship, serious commitment to giving and serving) these were optional add-ons for the few who were called to be more than “saved.”

Church teaching always aimed low. Get them saved. Tell them over and over again. Preach 52 sermons a year that, no matter which Bible text was used, ended up being about afterlife admittance. And this was called “the gospel,” even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the word gospel (euangelion) in the New Testament. The people in the pews were viewed as probably incapable of any higher life with God. So appeals to things like giving, serving, serious pursuit of holiness, were extras to which people would be vaguely invited to discover outside of the weekly 60-minutes for God event.

This makes my “spider-sense tingle” or, put another way, screams “Danger! Danger, Will Robinson” at me. It scares the heck out of me. What am I getting myself into?

Fortunately, Leman goes on to say:

Now, this is not actually Christianity. In my opinion, what goes on in the 60-minutes-for-God event in most church buildings is not Christianity. True Christianity, I would argue, is a beautiful thing. What keeps good people in low-aiming evangelical popular churches? I think it is the fact that small, inner circles of Bible readers in these places all find something deeper than what is presented in the 60-minutes-for God events.

That still makes it sound like finding “true Christianity” is about as simple as locating teeth in the beak of a hen or finding the proverbial needle in a haystack.

But I have to start somewhere.

I once employed an Internet meme stating that “One does not simply learn Torah in a church,” and was promptly, though indirectly chastised by none other than Boaz Michael, who along with his wife, does attend a church in a small town in Missouri. Apparently, the “weightier matters of the Torah” are indeed to be found in the church, or at least in some churches.

My point, a point for congregational life, is this: the Bible and the great thinkers and teachers of Judaism and Christianity, aim high, not low.

What does aiming high in congregational worship, teaching, and discussion mean? It means that leaders are educated and expected to have read other opinions and to be familiar with a broad range of ideas. The “what it means to me” approach to Bible teaching is a disaster. It means that the prayers and songs should call to a deep devotion and a wise faith. It means complexities and realities of suffering, of the failure of goodness to produce a pain-free life, of the highest goals of loving sacrificially, should be the core of the teaching. It means people at all levels of learning and practice should be challenged.

I guess I’m just trying to “psych” myself up for this Saturday. I worked up the nerve yesterday to tell my wife about my appointment and she took it pretty well. I looked for any signs of “discomfort” in her facial expression and body language and listened closely to her vocal tones, but everything indicated that she was calm and accepting of my position. So why do I feel like I just pounded another nail in the coffin of whatever shared faith experience we used to have?

It doesn’t help to have just discovered (literally, as I’m writing this) that people in middle age (i.e. “me”) are the “group making the biggest exodus out the back door of their churches,” according to information I read on Michelle Van Loon’s blog. Lovely. As I’m trying to get back in, all of my age-mates and peers are going back out.

Feinberg’s list of things that push older members out the door tags the usual suspects (changing worship styles, lame small groups, politics, communicators in the pulpit instead of pastors), though I believe that some items on her list torque those over 65 differently than they might if a person was in his or her early 40′s. For instance, Boomers developed church services heavy on entertainment and light on organ music and choirs; older Gen X-ers, now in their forties, came of age in an era when worship style wars had already been fought in many corners of Protestantism. For instance, I appreciate some hymns, but prefer thoughtful, organic modern worship music. I have a long history of breaking into highly inappropriate giggles if I visit a church and find my sung worship accompanied by bombastic organ music (and is there any other kind?).

Organ music? Lame small groups? Communicators instead of pastors? Oy!

Van Loon continues:

That said, those in the second half of life simply can’t freestyle their spiritual lives. God calls us to community, though our relationship with that community can and should change as we mature. (Wouldn’t it be wonderful if church leaders were willing to consider how to better facilitate spiritual growth for those in the second half of life?) Illness, the needs of aging parents and travel change our relationship with regular Sunday morning church attendance. Others find what they have to offer others is better received in contexts (non-profits, missions organizations) other than that of their local church.

I can see there’s no going back to the simple concept of “ekklesia” as Luke describes in Acts: the community of disciples who meet, pray, teach, share, and worship. To be part of a community is to meet the community where they are. It would be nice, as Van Loon says, if “church leaders were willing to consider how to better facilitate spiritual growth for those in the second half of life,” but how is the church supposed to meet me where I am, or is that even the point anymore? Who is supposed to be serving who and why does one even go to church?

So though I disagree with Feinberg on one hand, I agree with her on the other. She’s right: those of us who are older are called to mentor those younger than us, and to give ourselves away in generous, selfless service.

I can’t imagine, “oddball” that I am, even getting that far. In fact, I’m still trying to find out why I’m “going back to church.” I don’t really expect or need to “be fed” by the church, but I can hardly imagine they’d trust me to do any feeding, particularly as a “newbie.” I don’t know that I want to do any feeding. Teaching is draining and as a teacher or just a person, I’ve been wrong before, and I don’t want to take others down a wrong path with me. Maybe, I’ll just see if they need their carpets vacuumed once a week and that will be my Christian “mitzvot,” my way of giving back to a community that seems about as familiar to me (especially reading Van Loon’s blog) as the surface of one of Saturn’s moons.

What am I doing anyway?

Edit: I posted this a day early (it was supposed to be tomorrow’s “morning meditation”) because I had something of an epiphany. You’ll see what it’s all about in tomorrow morning’s blog post.