Paul's first question:
(1) Does the framework of the Body of Believers set forth in Scripture contemplate the Church being separate and distinct from Israel? Even if not, I understand that it is a present fact of life, and that we must be thankful to it for the preservation and promulgation of the Gospel. But if not, how does that affect our view of Spirituality as R. Dauermann defined it previously, being "the consideration, discussion, study, and pursuit of means toward that end[, Holiness]?”
Paul, words are important. Those who seek to detract from Dr. Kinzer and myself and the positions we espouse accuse of just this thing: postulating that the Church is separate from (Messianic Jewish) Israel. However, this is NOT our message nor is it helpful. In fact, the term “separate” describes the opposite of what we describe, which is the full unity of the Body of Messiah. The Messianic Jewish Remnant and the Church from among the nations are distinct—this is the right word.
The most helpful way to describe the difference is to speak of the wedded state of a man and a woman in a healthy marriage. In such a marriage the woman is fully a woman, the man fully a man. The more feminine the woman, and the more masculine the man, the better the marriage. But, as Scripture reminds us, “the two become one flesh”—they are not separate, but united. In fact, when we speak of a husband and a wife separating from each other, it does not bode well for the marriage. Nevertheless, marriages are healthy only to the extent that the husband and wife have distinct and healthy identitites themselves.
Similarly, the MJ Remnant and the Church from among the nations are healthiest when each is distinctly themselves—the Remnant being fully Jewish in its life and calling, the Church, faithful to its own life and calling, but both truly in union with each other as one ekklesia, or what one might call a “differentiated” ekklesia.
Again, those who use the term “separate” (not yourself!) generally use this term to portray us of rebuilding the middle wall of partition. And that’s another concept that needs addressing.
The middle wall of partition describes not a distinction in demographic or covenantal identity, but a difference in status. The dividing wall of hostility was one where those who were God’s insiders (Jews) were hostile to the intrusion of outsiders (Gentiles), and vice versa. Now the dividing wall of hostility has been removed, because in Messiah, Gentiles become full citizens of the people of God as Gentiles—no longer to be considered as second class either by themselves or by Israel. This does not and cannot mean that Gentiles thereby become Jews. If that were the case, then one would have to assume that the category of righteous animosity toward Gentiles remained in place (since the only Gentiles that can now draw near allegedly become Jews—the other Gentiles remaining categorically outsiders). However, this is not the case. In Yeshua, Gentiles are now received by God as Gentiles, and should be received that way by Messianic Jews and eventually all Jews.
I gave a presentation in a Church last week-end which addresses these matters. What follows are my notes for the presentation. I trust all of you will find it helpful. (We will deal with the role of Gentiles in our congregations vis-à-vis the Torah separately).
THE EMERGING MESSIANIC JEWISH PARADIGM
A Presentation by Stuart Dauermann, PhD
The following are seven ideas summarizing a helpful approach to understanding the roles of the Church, the Jewish People, and the Messianic Jewish Movement with respect to the Missio Dei, that is, the Mission of God—what God is up to in the world. This approach is explored in greater length in Mark Kinzer’s 2005 book, “Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People,” and in my forthcoming book, “Converging Destines: Jews, Christians, and the Mission of God.” This approach is especially helpful for Christians looking for ways to be faithful to Christ and also respectful of the identity and heritage of their Jewish friends, relatives and neighbors. This paradigm helps to coordinate in thought and action the broad sweep of how Scripture addresses these issues.
1. God is honored by Jewish Torah obedience. This applies no less to Messianic Jews than to the wider Jewish community. In the Older Testament this is evident from narrative texts concerning the giving of the Law (Exodus 19-20; Deuteronomy 4:5-8). In addition, prophecies concerning Jewish renewal at the end of days state that this end-time turning to God will include a renewal of Torah obedience (e.g., Deuteronomy 30:1-10, and Ezekiel 36:24-27). The Newer Testament also extols Jewish Torah obedience for all Jews, including Jewish Yeshua believers. Luke-Acts highlights the Torah obedience and Jewish piety of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Lk 1:6); Mary, Joseph, and the child Jesus (Lk 2:21-24, 27, 39-51); Simeon and Anna (Lk 2:25-26, 36-38); Jesus Himself (Lk 4:16 and many others); and the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-26). Clearly, Jewish Torah obedience for all Jews was presumed to be the God-ordained norm.
2. Such Torah-faithful Messianic Jews form the living link whereby the Church from among the nations is joined to the Commonwealth of Israel, and serve the Church by helping her reconceive of her identity and vocation as rooted in that of Israel. The One New Man of Ephesians, chapter two, expresses a unity of two distinct communal realities living together not in uniformity, but rather in love and mutual blessing. These two distinct realities are the Yeshua believers in Israel living as Yeshua’s people in Torah-based Jewish piety, and the Church from among the nations, serving Him in their own contexts, apart from the requirements of Jewish piety. This is why Paul was insistent that Gentile Yeshua believers should not become circumcised and seek to keep the Law: not because the Law is wrong, but because it is not God’s call and will for Gentiles, who become part of the people of God through Christ alone. This is also why James expected Paul to model Jewish piety, but said he required no such thing of the Gentiles who have believed (Acts 21:24-25), and this is why the Jerusalem Council disputed long (“much debate,” Acts 15:6) before deciding that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, and required to keep the Torah. This dispute only occurred because Jewish Yeshua believers assumed they were responsible for continuing to do so. Their debate was over whether the requirement of Torah-obedience applied to Gentiles as well (see Acts 15:1-21). Rather than superseding the Jewish people, the Church instead joins with them as part of the Commonwealth of Israel. Only in this way can the “dividing wall of hostility” – which supesessionism maintains – be removed, with Israel and the Church living in the peace Yeshua established rather than in competitive enmity.
3. Understanding her identity and vocation in this context, the Church will celebrate and support Jewish covenant faithfulness, seeing Yeshua-faith in the power of the Holy Spirit as its perfect embodiment, and will partner with Torah-faithful Messianic Jews as one ekklesia. By being joined as one ekklesia with the Torah obedient Jewish Yeshua-believers, the Church becomes part of the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:12-14), and therefore celebrates all of the God-given distinctives of Israel, including her Torah obedience. This position contrasts sharply with the denigration of Jewish Torah obedience so common in Christian thought and feeling. The Church joins with Israel without taking on her unique Torah responsibilities. This balance of unity and diversity is further highlighted in Ephesians 3:6, where Paul says “Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” The terms “fellow heirs, fellow members, and fellow partakers” require another communal reality with whom the Gentiles are joined, Jewish Yeshua-believers living as part of wider Israel.
4. Messianic Jewish outreach to the wider Jewish community involves revealing the Presence of Yeshua amidst Jewish life rather than importing Him as an outsider or exporting Jewish Yeshua-believers to other communities. The Jewish Yeshua believers of the Newer Testament believed that in a mysterious manner the Messiah had been with Israel throughout its history (1 Corinthians 10:1-4; Ephesians 2:12). Because of this, they saw in all of Israel’s sacred institutions (e.g., the Temple, the holidays, the Jubilee year) signs of the Messiah’s presence, and proclaimed him to be the fulfillment of Judaism rather than its nullification. Though Jewish communal life has developed over the past two thousand years without explicit faith in Yeshua, we find him present there nevertheless, just as Joseph provided for his brothers who rejected him even before he revealed his identity to them.
5. Such outreach proclaims the Name of Jesus, not the neediness of Jews. Sometimes mission approaches to the Jewish people include the assumption or even declaration of the emptiness and inadequacy of Jewish religious practice and faith. In contrast, the apostolic motivation for outreach to Jewish people was driven by the realization that in Yeshua, the long awaited Messiah had come. The oft-quoted passage, “There is no other name given among mortals by which we must be saved,” comes in a context where Peter and John were seeking to lift up the name of Jesus rather than put down the Jewish people: “for we cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:12, 20). We would do well to imitate their example and lift up the name of Yeshua without denigrating the holy things already given to the Jewish people (see Romans 3:1-4; 9:1-5).
What is wrong with a focus on neediness?
a. It gravitates toward denigration - both historically and contemporaneously
b. It distorts the biblical record, misshaping theologizing
c. It misshapes the Christian soul, fostering anti-Judaism, anti-Semitism, and arrogance
d. It is pragmatically worthless in outreach to Jewish people
What are better motivations than neediness to motivate outreach to Jews?
a. “Our Father which art in heaven” - Sharing the relationship
b. “Hallowed be Thy Name” - Glorifying God for who He is and what He has done
c. “Thy kingdom come” - Hastening the consummation
d. “Thy will be done” – Obedience
6. The honor of God is enhanced, and His reign established, when His people honor the Messiah whom He sent. Newer Covenant texts such as Matthew 23:39, Acts 3:19-21, and Romans 11:12, 15, imply that Israel’s acceptance of Yeshua will inaugurate the definitive coming of God’s Kingdom, when God’s name will be perfectly sanctified (Matthew 6:9-10). Looking toward that day, we seek to model and advance honoring Him among our people, Israel.
7. This paradigm enables concerned Christians to be both deeply faithful to Christ and deeply respectful of the living Jewish tradition and the Jewish community. Paul Himself exemplified this respect when, toward the end of his life, standing before Herod Agrippa, he characterized Jewish piety in this manner: “they earnestly serve God night and day”(Acts 26:7). Sadly, this respect has not generally characterized standard Christian approaches to the Jewish people. Isn’t it about time that it did?
17 comments:
Robert –
There are a few things that R. Stuart develops that are very helpful in making distinction between Jews and Gentiles. R. Stuart used the example of the wedded state of man and woman in a healthy marriage. This illustration is my “trump card” when people are argumentative in relation to their calling as gentiles within the MJ community. For the sake of quick review , I would like to bring to the forefront the words I shared on week 6, part 3 and ask anyone if they have used this specific analogy of husband and wife and if so what scriptural reference do they use if any?
I said – “Regarding the Jew/Gentile relationship, isn’t this relationship similar to the husband/wife relationship? I see Israel as symbolic to the husband in Eph.5 as he is the head (rosh) the same way Israel is called to be the rosh. The Gentiles are a picture of the wife as she is submitted to the husband as to the Lord (a picture of being grafted in just as the wife came from man’s side to be his help mate). Is it not fair to say that as the husband is called to lead (and with his leading comes distinction and various obligations to fulfill that are different than that of the woman) So Israel is called to lead the nations and is distinctive) while the Gentile church (a picture of the wife) has equal standing in G-d’s sight yet with a different function/calling? Is this relevant to this whole discussion of Jew/Gentile Torah observance or am I in the outfield?”
Any thoughts on this?
Something else that R. Stuart mentioned in his presentation The Emerging Messianic Jewish Paradigm. He touched on the issue of neediness and how it brings forth bad results. Then he spoke of better motivations than neediness in respect to outreach to Jews. I have found that praying the Amidah removes the neediness approach to my prayer life and brings a communal mindset with the Jewish community that prays these prayers. The “Our Father” explanation was very helpful in making this connection.
Words are indeed important. I have to agree that “separate” is the wrong word to use to describe the present state of the Church and Israel. What is more, this puts the finger on something that I need to work through.
“Distinct” is certainly more appropriate. What is more, it is causing me to really evaluate my thinking on the relationship between the Church and Judaism. In the traditional models, the Church and Judaism are two entirely separate spheres, although they should not be. Messianic Judaism intersects both and it seems that, while I acknowledge it, I neglected to give it enough credence or sufficient thought. What is more, MJ is likely acting as a catalyst to restore, at least in some respects, the intended intersection of these two, the ecclesia. I may be slow, but once I get it…
In light of your point #3, what is and is not appropriate for Gentiles? I understand and agree in principle. But I have no framework for analysis here. Or, if I do, I am unaware of it. In an orthodox synagogue the roles seem clearly defined. Gentiles were a kipa and may pray from a siddur. They are not counted as part of a minyan. They do not lay tefillin or don a tallit. They do not get called to the Torah or lead prayer. They can drive to shul without raising an eyebrow. What is more, as long as they adhere to the Noahide covenant, they are considered to merit a life in the olam haba. So there is no distinction in salvation there either. Any input is greatly appreciated.
Turning to points #5 and 7 in your notes, I can only say that these need to be made again and again and again. I am in the process of reading “Faith or Fear” as well. A very eye-opening book and very balanced. I commend it. It sheds bright light on these points and why they are so vital to communicate.
In response to Robert regarding the marriage analogy:
I think your model is correct. However based on my personal experience, what we consider a "rosh" in the academic sense is not quite the "rosh" in the practical sense. However, the distinction between husband and wife remains clear and unmistakable.
With that, what should a Messianic Jewish congregation be like under this model? I know I keep harping on this and I promise to let it go after this if there is no discussion generated.
It's late and in trying to sign in after typing my questions and comments I lost all that I had written.
Rather than try to recreate it all, I will be brief.
Where does discipleship fit into all this? Is it just for the Church? And is Torah observance a replacement for discipleship as "we learn by doing"? Also, it seems that there is difficulty establishing a Messianic Jewish Spirituality that is acceptable by Messianic Jewish congregations overall and also by the Church vis a vis supersessionism. Also it seems there is the problem of what is right behavior by all the Gentiles within Messiainic Jewish congregations and of how to deal with this especially in portraying a Messianic Jewish Spitituallity to nonbelieving Jews who look in and see a Gentile predominance.
Dr. Dauermann,
Your post today was very interesting and well articulated. I quite agree with your observations posted today. I also agree with your viewing of Eph. 2 like a marraige relationship. However, I think the difficulty is that at times the Nations and Israel will more resemble each other at times than be so different. Do I advocate "sameness"? Chas v'shalom - G-d forbid. However, like a marriage relationship, the beauty will be revealed in the spcial relationship between the two.
One quick question, however. How do you see practically the Church coming to truly support(and understanding) Torah faithfulness among Mess. Jews?
Robert:
I agree and like your thoughts on marriage and its illustration for Israel and the Nations. Nicely put!
I also agree with Robert's observation on R. Stuart's discussion of "neediness of Jews." I think R. Stuart well articulates the positive aspect and why to view outrech to the Jewish people through such anew paradigm.
Robert –
Response to Paul:
You mentioned “rosh” in the academic sense, but when I am using it I am using it as an illustration/symbolic of the word head which describes Israel’s role to the nations as well as a husband’s role in marriage. Although the Lexicon breaks down the word rosh to mean many things one of which is head (as in part of the body). My thoughts on this subject (Husband/wife- Israel/nation) have not been exhausted, but I regularly reflect on its application within our congregation.
You mentioned “what should a MJ congregation be like under this model?” First and foremost the model would be one of proper order. As I stated in Ephesians 5, Sha’ul associates the husband (as the head) as responsible to go first, one that is committed to create the order of the married life. Yet there are conditions for the husband as he is to lead in love without an iron-fist. In a similar fashion, Israel is called to be the head of the nations. Dr. Kinzer better describes Israel as a representative nation and also a partner. Israel as a representative nation leads (as a husband) in “going ahead” and blazing a trail for the nation. I see this similar to the husband creating the order for the married life. As many well know, in married life women find it difficult to accept their husband’s authority. This is very connected to how the nations (or more so the church) finds it difficult to submit to G-d’s order of Israel and the nations where the Jewish people to lead the way. Like so many dysfunctional marriages today, the wives usurp the “unauthorized” authority of the husband and walk out a role that is not theirs. So the church has usurped Israel’s authority and has supposedly replaced it.
I can go on and on with illustrations and parallels, but the bottom line is now through Messiah Yeshua we are in a different place than the pre-Yeshua days. Today Jew and Gentile can be one yet distinct in their proper roles which need to be respected and I believe this can be done in a MJ congregation where there are committed gentiles to Jewish life. Jews have an eschatological purpose in a unique way unlike other ethnic groups, so some Gentiles want to be connected to this just as a wife should be drawn to her husbands leading and inspiration. This produces a set of challenges for us all, but we need to instruct those in our midst as I am sure all of us are trying to do. I am not so sure that Sh’aul planted separate congregations where there were Jews over there and Gentiles over here. There was a Jewish contingent in the larger population of gentile believers. This obviously diminished over the years through unlearned gentiles turning against Jewish life in Yeshua for the Jewish population.
So “what should a MJ congregation be like under this model?” This will be different for everyone in the movement. Some will limit gentile membership, whiles others will not. Some will remain fixed on quotas and some will not. My opinion is based on this model in Ephesians. The Jew needs the Gentile and the Gentile needs the Jew and both have their respected roles and one should not usurp the others role. We as Messianic Jews should be open to those gentiles who are willing to live out their life to Jewish calling leading them in truth and in love. In return these gentiles committed to Jewish callig should submit to their role in the movement, not as Jews, but as fellow heirs in Messiah. Is this for all? NO! Is it for some? YES! I will close with this last thought. 3 years ago I sought the Lord on this very issue of gentile inclusion in the MJ movement and with the help of G-d and other mentors G-d gave me a vision which actually caused a BIG split in our congregation. Why the split? Because people did not want to submit to their leadership and to G-d’s vision for the community. Ever since I gave this vision, we have had less identity issues and more committed “healthy” members in our midst. Thanks for your eyes in reading all of this, and please let me know your thoughts.
Our Vision at Beth Shalom: Establishing a covenant community where Jewish and Gentile believers in Yeshua are called to serve the Lord as fellow-heirs in Messiah, worship in a Jewish way, sharing the Good News of Messiah Yeshua to the Jew first and also to the Gentile, and training Jews in their covenantal responsibility for the purpose of extending the Kingdom of Heaven locally, in Israel and the nations.
To Robert:
Thank you. I suspect that, after the split, things got moving in the right direction?
Sorry Guy's had a little computer trouble so I couldn't dialogue as I would have wanted!
I've just read Robert's posting on the "split" that took place in his congregation after confronting members over their responsibility and the question of authority.The vision seemed to include Gentiles and Jews in a common setting with Jews being coached towards covenant responsibility,etc.
How realistic is all of this I ask myself! How many Gentiles will be prepared to continue in a two tier system!!I'm very sceptical...even with all the retoric on different callings,distinctiveness,etc..I remain very cynical.And what about the kids that grow up in these settings...always feeling sort of on the outside.
We talk alot about the "bridge "that the MJC is supposed to play between traditional church congregations and the Jewish community but I wonder how possible this is if the Messianic Congregations aren't anchored in the Christian churches anymore.Doesn't a bridge have to have two very firm struts on both sides.It would seem to me that on both sides the foundations are a little suspect!!
But looking at this question from another angle: why would we want to shun full community with the wider Christian churches?
Are we afraid or ashamed of the church...and fear Jews will see us as we really are JEWISH CHRISTIANS.
In response to Paul's question a day or so ago, the church must be seen as the "hub",as the bride of Christ (Kallat Mashiach)and as forming the most direct link back to Yeshua's time on earth.We should have tremendous gratitude for it's having preserved the message more or less authentically,and as Kinzer would say,although other forms of Judaism may exist that are nonrabbinical,it would be foolhardy to imagine that we can recreate these earlier forms(or Ethiopian form) out of thin air.
Of course we can break all of this down to replacement/vs Separation/vs Remenant theology.This latter is based on the assumtion that the church and remnant Israel(Gal 6.6) overlap in some manner.I've heard the term used of Remnant Israel "eschatological brethren"which takes on the meaning of future followers and servants of the L-rd Jesus Christ as his "calling and gifts are irrevocable"(ROM 11:29.
So Messianic congregations do not exist INSTEAD of the church and they don't exist OUTSIDE of the church but they exist WITHIN the faithful followers of Jesus Christ.
Now ,onto the grass roots level of how this would all work in practice:
It would seem to me that Jewish members of Messianic communities should be prepared to take on a Jewish lifestyle,be completely steeped in rabbinical literature and liturgy and, if possible,try to attend neighbouring synagogues.All this INDEPENDANT of their traditional church attendance.At the moment ,Messianic communities are but pale imitations of true synagogue style.I become more and more convinced that this "mission" is not for everyone as it takes someone very firmly centered in his/her faith in Messiah to be able to delve into Rabbinical/Kabbalistic writings and come out the other end ,faith intact.But I'm sure that is what we are called to do..go the whole way!
Isn't this compromise or piecemeal approach to Jewish observance/customs/writings in part to blame for our inability to lift true Jewish communites off the ground?
I couldn't help thinking that this "ekklesia" that some would want to seek "separation" from ,is the same ekklesia that was founded by a Torah observant Jew and begun with the Jewish people.It was even a tolerated subset within larger Isreal ...until the destruction of the Temple and then we start having the Birkhat HaMinim and the rest is history or Cherem!
It would seem to me that the metaphor of the husband and wife of Eph.5 works rather well.However, are remnant Israel(she'arit Yisrael) and the ekklesia equal partners? Isn't one more like an adopted child that thinks of herself as a "Cinderella" lowborn and unworthy?
If we think of both entities as equal aren't we setting up ourselves for the inevitable competition that arises as to who is the more "representative" of Masiach?
I find it useful to think of the Israel as the mother/the ekklesia as the adopted child.
Robert -
To Paul -
Yes things got much better and I learned a valuable lesson = Some things are non-negotiable! This may seem a bit blunt, but in the MJ movement especially pertaining to gentile inclusion, one needs to be.
Robert –
To John:
You said: “How realistic is all of this I ask myself! How many Gentiles will be prepared to continue in a two tier system!!I'm very sceptical...even with all the retoric on different callings,distinctiveness,etc..I remain very cynical.And what about the kids that grow up in these settings...always feeling sort of on the outside.”
It works on my end, but it takes a lot of patience and teaching. When it comes to covenant, covenant includes responsibilities. Regarding the two-tier system you mentioned, I don’t see it as that at all. Again if a husband and a wife are two-tiered Biblically than I guess you are correct, but I don’t see it as that kind of system.
R. Stuart, profoundly stated, “God has the right to give His laws to whosoever He will, and he has given the Torah as the inheritance of the descendants of Jacob. As to why God does not call all the nations to embrace the Torah way of life, that is really God’s concern.” Regarding those that may feel like “outsiders,” I say this - it is not very difficult if Gentiles find their identity in Yeshua and get past the concern that they are second class citizens. There is no higher place than being in Messiah.
You also said –“why would we want to shun full community with the wider Christian churches?”
I can only speak for myself, but we rent from two churches, one especially to whom we are connected to in terms of community. We invite the pastors to all of our special events in order to educate them in the roots of their faith. They are very respectful towards us and make us feel at home, yet they continue being the church that they are called to be and we continue to live out our call as a MJ congregation.
This is a great discussion that is going on and I want to add an observation. Yeshua said this in John 10 - “14 I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
So we have Yeshua’s Sheep – the Jews who believed him
We also have the other sheep – the Gentiles who believe him
I believe that this is talking about the Church, which we are a part of. This church, the flock, is made up of different kinds of sheep, but Yeshua never said that one type of sheep would be superior to the other – it’s just not in there. I also tend to think that the Church is not this homogenous entity, but also has dynamic parts of its own – the Chinese Church, the Deep South Church – these all have their own great identity.
So I take this passage of scripture and understand that as a Jewish believer in Yeshua, I am physically joined to the people of Israel, but spiritually joined to the Father through Yeshua. So I am one of Yeshua’s sheep.
It makes sense to me that we all have our foundational traits and identity in the Spiritually realm of the Kingdom. Without Yeshua we have no real identity – going back to John 10, if we don’t listen to His voice, we aren’t his sheep at all. But I strongly believe that the closer we walk with Yeshua, the stronger we will outwardly walk out our distinct heritage and calling. This goes not just for Jews, but for all the nations as well.
Now, going back to the issue of Gentiles in the Messianic Community, some just have what has been labeled as a “Ruth Calling”, and they need to be part of our community, period. But that is not everyone.
Nathaniel,
Your point is well taken and am glad that you pointed out John 10. From what I understand, there is no question in anyone's mind here that Gentiles are and should be a part of our community. From what I can tell, the question touches on the issue of the tension between Israel maintaining its distinctiveness in this substantial per captia population of Gentiles (a concern that is well rooted in the history of the Church) and the Gentiles properly taking on Jewish observances. As far as I can tell, there are two ends to this spectrum. The first is prohibiting Gentiles from any form of Jewish identity not permitted in mainstream Judaism - kipas, and participation in prayer and community events but no tallit, tefillin, or leading prayers or being called to the Torah. The other being permitting full participation without distinction but with the clear understanding that these folks are not Jewish. I am more inclined towards the latter but am still working things through. The vision statement that Robert provided is very helpful.
I've just read the Goldstein and Knobel book and found it rather good.Especially the first part with it's historical overview of the reform movement and the difficulties that the movement had in maintaining a "distinct"Jewish life in American life at the turn of the Century.Aren't some of their worries,preoccupations the same ones that we are facing? Return to Mitzvot,Liturgy,ritual without re-interpreting the whole thing?
I also thought of something which is quite exciting and concerns our topic on Gentile/Jewish place and the church/Israel.
We have already conformed that we want the Messianic comminities to be bridges with the wider Jewish reality.
However,we're all on the inside...how do those on the outside see our future?
In other words, why don't we seek out the vision of where Jews should fit in with the wider community once they have accepted Yeshua!
Maybe the response might not be what we expect.I can imagine the Rabbis mourning over our leaving the Traditional community,(the loss of good Jewish boys),but they might be enthusiastic of us continuing on with some forms of mitzvot(in a way to bring us back to them in the future?).
But at least some sort of dialogue with the rabbis would allow us, for once ,to have a statement to work with and to address.
We could also solicit their feelings about how Gentiles fit in with Jewish worship and their adoption of Jewish rites and rituals/dress code,etc.
I maybe mad suggesting this...but atl east that would draw the wider Jewish community to address the issue of where we fit in, as fellow Jews, with their plans.
Post a Comment