Week Four - Responding to your Questions: Part One (Paul and John)

Friends and Fellow Learners,

Well, we have certainly waded into some central issues, haven't we? And I know we have all been impressed with the workings of God in each other's lives as evidenced in our Seven Stage Journey accounts.

I will again be responding to last week's input day by day this week, between now and Wednesday, posting every day, or at least three out of four.

As last week, your task will be to log on each day to see if I have posted (I will post no later than 2:00 PM Pacific Time each day), to read what I post each day, and to respond to at least one of my essays for that day indicating with some vigor your agreement or disagreement, or perhaps discussing applicability of this essay to your own context, or better alternatives you would propose other than the viewpoint I suggest. In other words, in your comment, I am asking you to engage with what I say and discuss its level of truth and applicability in reference to the MJ Movement and your own context. This will mean that you need to post a minimum of three or four comments this week (one for each day that I post). And please, realize that a one or two sentence comment is not adequate. Rather, demonstrate your critical engagement with the issues raised. Two hundred and fifty words is a good minimum to shoot for.
I also encourage you to interact with one another. The point of all this is for iron to sharpen iron—for you all to improve each other’s thinking through such interaction.

Paul's Seven Circles

Paul, thank you for your story: succinct, fascinating, inspiring. It is a privilege to walk this road with you for any length and in any manner. Although I certainly believe in healing, I regret that people have presumed to predict your son’s healing. God may do that, and he certainly may: but when even well-intentioned believers make such prophesies, they can put one’s faith to a further test since they get one’s hopes up in a certain direction, and when results do not appear, well, as you know, it can be discouraging.

My counsel in such cases: always have trust in the God who may heal, and who may not, but who is certainly always there to make His presence known.
March 20, 2007 1:51 PM

John's Seven Circles

Amazing story about your Mom, her Jewish family, her vision, and abandonment of Jewish life—sad but not as uncommon as some would imagine.

Thank God for the touch of your aunt. I also had an aunt who was an angel of mercy in my life—in fact her name was Angela. Interesting to hear about your sojourn in Julliard. Even though I attended the competition, Manhattan School of Music, I will continue counting you a respected friend!

I can certainly relate to your disillusionment with the egoism of competitive music—I had the same experience at Manhattan School, and my son, a fine legit singer, decided NOT to go to a Conservatory because he wanted to avoid such a climate. Instead, now graduating as a singer from SF State University, then off to Germany for a year before returning to go to graduate school.

Fascinating about your sojourn with the worthy servants of Christ associated with the monastic order of Charles de Foucauld. You have much to teach a self-involved Messianic Jewish Movement which cannot truly serve God if it neglects the poor.
Still had not heard of Messianic movement and as I believed in Yeshua had no option but to "drop the football(jewishness)".Joined Roman Catholic monastic brotherhood of Charles de Foucauld(Missionary who lived in Africa among poor).For the next 7 years lived in some of the slums of Europe,hoping by sharing the same conditions of life as the poor, a witness to Yeshua would become "more real/relevant".

Both you and Paul speak of hearing from God—one of the crazy little secrets of many of the people of God who can attest to such experiences (myself as well). About 17 years ago I went through a major growth spurt in this area, due to crisis, as is so often the case. The best book I know on the subject is Dallas Willard’s “Hearing God,” but Richard Foster’s “Celebration of Discipline” was also formative for me in this regard. Glad to hear about your wife and children, who I am sure, are all splendid.

Interesting as well to hear of your connection with Yeshua through Psalm 22. He was not only quoting Tanach, but of course, the Psalm overlays amazingly with His crucifixion experience. Beyond that, the Psalm speaks compellingly of the redemptive effects of the suffering of the Afflicted One. It does seem clear that Yeshua was meditating on the entire Psalm as He hung on the cross.

Fascinating to hear of your service in Switzerland. Have you experienced the angst of seeking to live a Jewish life in isolation from other Jews? Are there enough Jews in your section of Switzerland to perhaps seed your planned Messianic Congregation with the sons and daughters of Jacob rather than with Gentile philosemites?

Bless you for sharing your inspiring story.

Paul’s Three Questions:

(1) As a movement, can we legitimately hope to maintain our integrity with the Jewish community without halakhah? And with that, do we assume the approach advocated in “Duties of the Soul” or of “On Being a Jew?” Finally, as leaders and as a movement, what standard do we point towards, even if we “are not there yet?”

These are all ongoing questions—they are heuristic questions which point us in the direction of renewed perspectives and yet more questions.

One thing you and other can do, Paul, is to be supportive of the efforts of the Rabbinical Assembly birthed out of New England MJ Counsel, which has been working on just such questions for a number of years. Some people feel as if we are seeking to dictate to the MJ community how they ought to live. This is of course, not the case. Rather, a number of rabbis have joined together in mutual concern and mutual accountability to grapple with just the kinds of questions you are asking.

As other worthwhile people express distrust or anxiety about our efforts, your support would be helpful. You might contact Tony Eaton to find out more about this initiative.

(2) Without a strong sense of halakhah, for how many generations will our movement maintain its Jewish identity? Put another way, if just being a Jew is enough, how do we convey that sense to our posterity in a meaningful way? If we are going to adopt the “just being a Jew is enough” approach, how do we, over the next two or three generations, avoid becoming a class of secularized Jews who happen to believe in Yeshua? Will they understand what being Jewish means?

Of course you are right on the money here, and as I indicated in a posting last week, even Mitch Glaser of the missions culture has realized that it is not enough to reassure people of their Jewishness, if we do not explore and nurture what that means.

(3) If we reject halakhah, are we rejecting Yeshua’s authority? He did say that the rabbis sit in Moshe’s seat that that we are to do what they tell us to do. On what basis do we reject any of it?

I think that fundamentally, many in our movement are infected with a combination of anti-Judaism and post-Enlightenment rationalistic individualism. Some accept as a given that “the Law” is antithetical to the Spirit, and that one must always avoid legalistic bondage (without their being clear on what that means). Then of course, there is anti-rabbinism—the distrust of the rabbis as a class—which is epidemic in our movement. With such antibodies in our social system, many in our movement evidence an allergy to halacha—to its rabbinic origins, to its authoritative status (when autonomy is the assumed spiritual birthright of every believer), etc.

But as we begin thinking through the erosion of Jewish identity, as did the authors in “Duties of the Soul,” and as more of us do the demanding theological and biblical work to discover that facile dismissals of Law and legalism are exegetically indefensible, then more good people like you will begin asking the right questions. Frankly, classes like this, processes like this, are part of the solution.

And returning to your question, I would say, “Yes! Rejecting rabbinic halakha out of hand does involve a rejection of Yeshua’s authority.”

John's First Question

There's something I can't grasp.How is it possible that writers like Heschel, and Rabbi Steinsaltz can write on the "lived spiritual experience" and that it rings so completely true for us.How is it possible,despite Yeshua rejection,that we still share a very similar spiritual experience with tradition forms of Judaism? Mystery? I would even go as far as to say that they reveal the heart of the Father like many other "Christian" books fail to do.Many examples, of deep,deep rivers of profound transcendance ,indicating a continued "open" dialogue with HaShem.(as in Kugel:If a space (miskhan) is made for G-d, G-d always fills that void swiftly").

You are touching on a hot-button issue here, expressing an opinion which will get you in very hot water in some circles. This touches on a fundamental assumption in mission circles, certainly residual among us—that Jews who do not believe in Jesus by definition have no relationship with God, and no valid experience with God. This position is generally implicit and subconscious, but is sometimes defended in this manner: “Since the only way you can have the Holy Spirit is through explicit faith in Christ, and the only way you can have experience/relationship with God is through the Holy Spirit, then Jews who do not believe in Christ have neither the Holy Spirit nor experience/relationship with God.”

This syllogism is full of holes. First of all, it is one thing to “have the Holy Spirit,” another thing to be influenced by the Spirit. Many of us were influenced by the Holy Spirit before we had explicit faith in Christ, and so may it be with many Jews. Secondly, what do we mean by “relationship with God” and is it synonymous with evangelical soul salvation? And does Scripture support the assumption that only those with explicit faith in Christ have any relationship with the God? I think not.

I have explored this in a number of venues, and invite you all to read the following Letter to the Editor, in response to an article by Jews for Jesus staff members in their newsletter “Havurah.” Here I address issues directly related to John’s question.

To the Editor,

I was glad to read Rich Robinson's and Ruth Rosen's article in your recent issue of Havurah. This is because it was an occasion to recall how long I have known them both (collectively, well over fifty years!) and to reflect how to my knowledge we have never had a cross word with each other. That is something to be grateful for.
That is not to say that I agree with what they said in their article. On the contrary, I found their portrayal of the UMJC and Hashivenu, Inc., to be inaccurate and problematical on multiple levels. Due to the space constraints inherent in a letter to the editor, I will confine my comments to only three matters.

[1] Rich and Ruth draw a conclusion that does not logically follow in alleging that Mark Kinzer's comment that "it's still possible for a Jew who doesn't know Yeshua to have a living relationship with God, just as a Christian" indicates that he is saying that "a Jewish person can be saved because of the Abrahamic covenant" [emphasis yours]. You label this as a two-covenant position. However, his statement says nothing about salvation. Clearly he was talking about having a living relationship with G-d. For this reason, Rich and Ruth's conclusion is both unsatisfactory and confusing. Can it be that you have repudiated Vera Schlamm, whose excellent biography, Pursued, JFJ has long distributed, and whose testimony you have featured in book, article and video form?
As you may remember, in part of her testimony she indicates that in coming to faith in Yeshua as an adult in the United States, she was but discovering the face of the God who had answered her prayers as a child in the concentration camp. In fact, in one of your ISSUES publications she puts it this way, "The day that I committed my life to Jesus as the Messiah, I realized that I hadn't 'changed' but rather grown in my own faith." According to her own account, which you published and distributed, even as a child she already had some sort of relationship with God—who answered her prayers in the camps before she believed in Yeshua. She indicates that her conversion meant entering more deeply into a previously existing relationship. Did Dr. Schlamm hold to a two covenant position?

The article is also illogical on Scriptural grounds. This is because I can't imagine Rich and Ruth repudiating Acts 10, where Cornelius the Centurion, who had not yet heard the gospel which he needed to hear to be saved, is visited by the angel who tells him that "your gifts to the poor and your prayers have ascended as a memorial offering before God." Clearly Cornelius had a relationship with God already—he had a reputation in heaven for his gifts to the poor and his prayers which had ascended and been well received there—before he heard the message of salvation in Yeshua. Did the angel and Luke, the author of Acts, believe in a two-covenant theory? These two illustrations, Dr. Schlamm and Cornelius, expose your conclusion regarding Dr. Kinzer to be not only unwarranted but also inconsistent with JFJ's own media statements and with Scripture which I know you extol. This is puzzling to me.

[2] I am afraid there is yet more that is unsatisfactory and confusing. This is because Rich and Ruth create a straw man and a false dilemma by stressing that our core identity is that "we are part of his body, one with all believers in all times and places." They stress that in the place of loyalty and relationship with the Jewish people, "our primary spiritual and social home must be among those whom we allow to influence us the most, and that should be the body of believers" [the Church]. In fact, they repeatedly pit loyalty and kinship with the Jewish community against our loyalty to the Church, stressing that a choice must be made of one against the other. This is troubling.

Because they mis-frame the question, the only "right" answer possible is the one they favor—but it is in fact a wrong answer because it answers a wrong question based on an artificial dichotomy. The question should be framed in the fashion of this one, which avoids this pitfall: "Which is more important to good health? A healthy lymphatic system or a healthy blood stream?" The only correct answer to this answer is "both."

Similarly, a healthy Messianic Jew must manifest an ongoing vigorous and healthy loyalty both to the Jewish community and to the Church. The Jewish people are our mishpocha—our family of origin. The Church is our beloved in-laws, therefore also family. We in Hashivenu believe that it [is] only those who continue to show respect and love for their family of origin whom in-laws will trust to treat them properly as well. Or do Rich and Ruth believe that people who repudiate their family of origin are likely to treat their in-laws well? We in the UMJC believe that it is only as we continue to stay connected to and respectful of our family of origin that fair-minded Christians will trust and respect our relationship with the Church. But your article sees such loyalty and intimacy with the Jewish community to be seductive, dangerous and suspect at best. For us, on the other hand, the Hashivenu Core principle holds true: "The Jewish people are 'us' not 'them.'"

And let me clarify that these are not simply equal loyalties. Our primary and continuing identity must be as part of the Jewish people, and this, not simply as a matter of etiquette. The continuing purposes of God for the Jewish people as a people includes a particular destiny for "the church from among the circumcision." We must not restrict God's continuing purposes for Israel to an eventual Millennium! We have a communal and distinct role to play now as the remnant within Israel.

That irreducible dyad Rich Nichol mentions is intensely biblical. Why else, for example, would G-d have appointed and Scripture have highlighted two apostolates—one to the circumcision and the other to the uncircumcision (Galatians 2:9)? These are not demographically equal spheres, yet in the purposes of God it is only these two spheres which are mentioned, and they remain distinct. Would God not have better appointed one apostle to the East and the other to the West? Or perhaps North and South? If, as Rich and Ruth say, the proper irreducible dyad were male and female, would not God have appointed distinct apostolates to each, perhaps Mary Magdalene to the women and Simon Peter to the men?

It is only by recognizing and honoring such divine purposes that we properly serve God, Israel, and our brethren in the Spirit, the Church from among the Nations, whom we honor and with whom we co-labor. On the other hand, the alternative Rich and Ruth propose seems to me to foreshadow inevitable assimilation, something contrary to the will of God expressed in Scripture.

[3] Finally, Rich and Ruth say something truly puzzling concerning myself and my colleagues in Hashivenu and the UMJC: "They do not represent the majority of people in any one messianic organization, but their influence is being felt in various organizations and congregations." My problem is how you could possibly know this! Have you conducted a scientifically reputable poll on this matter? If so, no congregation I know of has received the survey! On a related note, in responding to a statement by the President of the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, your article states, "We fear Jamie Cowen is overly optimistic in his belief that 'all' (UMJC congregational leaders?) adhere to the position that all people need the saving grace of Jesus for salvation." Clearly, Rich and Ruth cannot claim to know the state and pulse of the Union better than the Union's President who has served for many years as both a congregational rabbi and executive officer!

Thank you for the opportunity to correct some misunderstandings while highlighting what we view to be biblically mandated and Godhonoring distinctives of the Messianic Jewish Congregational Movement, especially the UMJC.

In Yeshua, who is both King of the Jews and Lord of the Church,

Stuart Dauermann

President, Hashivenu, Inc.

And the following is my response to some comments by a Mr. Hazakim who took issue on a JFJ Bulletin Board with some of my statements above.

Again. I invite you all to think about these statements and to comment.

More tomorrow.

Stuart

Mr. Hazakim,

I could spend a couple of hours responding to your alarming posting, but I will restrict myself to considering comments made about me and my alleged positions.

>
>Stuart Dauermann's response to the relevant J4J article was
>most troubling of all; brimming with theological error and
>stunning examples of eisegesis that would make even a seasoned
>JW blush, he wrenches scripture out of context to support his
>baseless contention. In his response to Jews for Jesus he
>raises the following contention:
>
>“…I can't imagine Rich and Ruth repudiating Acts 10, where
>Cornelius the Centurion, who had not yet heard the gospel
>which he needed to hear to be saved, is visited by the angel
>who tells him that "your gifts to the poor and your prayers
>have ascended as a memorial offering before God." Clearly
>Cornelius had a relationship with God already—he had a
>reputation in heaven for his gifts to the poor and his prayers
>which had ascended and been well received there—before he
>heard the message of salvation in Yeshua.”
>
>This argument is forced at best and is in no way relevant to
>the question at hand, namely: Is acceptance of and faith in
>Yeshua necessary for the salvation of a Jew as well as a
>gentile? With the writings of the Jewish apostles as my
>witness, the answer is a resounding YES!

You are the one guilty of eisegesis--illegtimately reading into the text what is not there--Mr. Hazakim. The issue I was addressing was NOT whether the Centurion was saved prior to hearing the gospel. In fact, I clearly stated that he was NOT--that Peter had not yet arrived at Cornelius' home to deliver the message whereby he would be saved. The issue I was addressing, which you miss entirely, is whether in any sense the Centurion had a relationship with God prior to hearing the gospel. And it is CLEAR from the text that he did as a careful rereading of the material you yourself quote will make clear. What you call "the question at hand" is YOUR question but not the question I was addressing. I hope you read Scripture more carefully than you did my letter!

Mr. Dauermann’s
>argument is flawed in several areas. Firstly, the 10th
>chapter of Acts describes Cornelius and his family as “devout
>and God-fearing” gentiles who presumably worshiped the God of
>Israel and indulged in charity and prayer-life as a result of
>their love for God’s commandments and their desire to know
>Him. Therefore, the idea that they were seekers of the truth,
>ready to accept God’s means of atonement on His terms, can be
>presupposed.

And this is very much my point! But be careful with what you say here, Mr. Hazakim, or you will get accused of heresy as I have been on these boards! You see, you are describing Cornelius in a manner exactly parallel to how we could describe the position of pious religious Jews. I would contend that it is overstepping Scripture for people to smugly assert that NO pious Jews have ANY relation\ship with God apart from explicit faith in Yeshua. Cornelius clearly did--prior to his even hearing the gospel. And I am convinced for the reasons I state in my letter to Havurah that this is true of pious Jews in our day. And I am even more convinced that the agenda-driven need of some evangelicals to deny this, and to pillory those who entertain this view, is illegitimate and oversteps the bounds of what the whole counsel of God give us warrant to say.

>The scriptures say nothing about the pious deeds
>of this God-fearing gentile being sufficient enough to foster
>a relationship with the God of Israel. We don’t want to read
>into the text something it does not say. Clearly, as a result
>of his search for truth, and his willingness to accept HaShem
>with a humble heart, God saw fit to reveal the Messiah to him
>in order that he might find SALVATION, leading to a
>relationship with Himself. If Cornelius was in right standing
>with God already, why does God even bother with sending Peter
>to his house that he might learn about Yeshua!?!?

Again, you misrepresent and distort my position. I in fact state clearly that Cornelius had not yet heard the message whereby he would be saved . I did NOT say at all that he already had right standing with God, I said he already had a RELATIONSHIP with God, which I would define, as does Dallas Willard in his book "Hearing God", as "two way communication." And it was this kind of two way relationship that Vera Schlamm speaks of in her JFJ marketed testimony. She had a relationship with God while still a child in the camps before she heard the gospel as an adult from one of her clients in Glendale. This is no heresy.

>To compare this God-fearing gentile who accepted God’s means
>of atonement with a religious Jew who rejects God’s means of
>atonement, in an attempt to argue that faith in Yeshua is not
>necessary for that Jew is erroneous to say the least!

Your presuppositions are showing., Most Jews do not reject Jesus--most ignore him. There is a difference. And many do not see him as good news for the Jews: how could they considering the sordid history of Jesus believers and the Jewish people since at least the second century when Justin Martyr was the first to charcteize the Jews as God-abandoned Christ killers. How much Jewish blood has been spilled and Jewish flesh burned and Jewish women raped, and Jewish homes pillaged in Jesus Holy Name since then. And the fact is that in general, Jesus has been presented to the Jews as a "saving alternative" to the "futility" of Jewish Torah-based covenant faithfulness. So many of those Jews chose death rather than baptism *out of loyalty to the God of Abraham.* Does your theological stance require you to believe that God in no manner valued their to the death loyalty and in no manner counted it in their favor. I beg you to find the courage to think and feel more deeply.

There is much more I could respond to in your letter, but I have to prepare some lectures.

I beg you to think more clearly, and to feel more deeply. When we think too narrowly, and trumpet our views too stridently, "the name of God is blasphemed among the pagans because of us," and the faith and blood of uncounted pious Jews, ordering their lives in covenant faithfulness, is treated with contempt. Shame on us.