Rabbenu
A Discussion of Messianic Judaism, the Emerging Messianic Jewish Paradigm, and Related Leadership Issues from the Preoccupied Mind of Rabbi Stuart Dauermann, PhD.
All Contents ©2004-2007 Stuart Dauermann - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Monday, April 10, 2006
Follow-up on "What's Wrong With This Picture?"
Friends;
This is my response to the quotation I referenced in my previous blog entry, "What's Wrong With This Picture."
I have posted this as the fifth comment on the previous blog entry, but am reprinting it here for easy access.
Thanks for reading and for caring.
I will not pretend to be comprehensive in my comments, but will restrict myself to those errors of fact, faith, or feeling that especially disturb me. I am sure I will be referencing this offensive quotation in my future career as an horrific example of wrongs that must be addressed. But for now, a more short-hand approach is in order.
One of his earliest glaring statements is his reference to “the Jewish faith” as “enemy territory.” The term “enemy” is commonly used as a euphemism for Satan, and most likely this is behind his terminology. There are those in the Jewish mission culture who have spoken of Judaism as “a false religion,” and there are certainly others who would say so again, and more as well, and since such people view all false religions as doctrines of demons, etc., the result is what you see here. From his comments later on John 8:44, it is a virtual certainty that this author sees Judaism as satanic.
What shall we say to this appalling canard? Suffice it to say at this point, that even Paul the Apostle speaks of those who practice Judaism as “earnestly serving God night and day.” And it is he who represents the pagan world as being “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” It is the Jewish people in the context of their spiritual inheritance, the hub of “the commonwealth of Israel,” who constitute home base for the people of God. But after 2000 years of anti-Judaism and supersessionism, people such as our author have come to speak of the Jewish people as if they are godless pagans, rather than God’s root people, with all their inheritance as having passed to the Church.
Something else that jumps out at me, alarms me, but does not really surprise me. is his statement, “Judaism clung tenaciously to the law and summarily rejected Jesus as either Christ or Lord.” Notice the assumption that clinging tenaciously to the Law [Torah] is somehow spiritually deleterious, and that, in fact, Jewish people need to choose between Christ and Torah, God forbid. This is the legacy of a misshapen and erroneous supersessionist Christian consensus. Although, in our day, this consensus is by no means universal among Christians, still, the assumption that the Law is a negative and that fealty to it is an obstacle to real spirituality and relationship with God is by no means extinct.
In contrast to the author being critiqued here, proponents of the Emerging Messianic Jewish Paradigm applaud all Jewish efforts to “cling to the Law.” Furthermore, we in no sense see this as antithetical to Yeshua faith, and indeed, see Scripture clearly calling Yeshua believing Jews to lives of Torah obedience. But our author will have none of that. For him the Law is antithetical to the gospel, and loyalty to that law might just lead to rejection of the Messiah.
His mischaracterization of modern Judaism’s Reform, Conservative and Orthodox practitioners is at best hilarious. I dare say there are no readers of this blog unaware that atheism, agnosticism, and faithfulness to the rites and traditions of Judaism may be found in any of the branches he names, and that his mischaracterization of the Jewish community betrays an ignorance that could only have been nurtured in isolation from the very communities he seeks to describe. “Father, forgive them, they know not what they are talking about!”
He is appalling in his explicit and implicit polarized presentation of religious Judaism and its leaders as being “implacably at enmity with Jesus as the promised Christ or Messiah. The rejection of that identification is what motivated the Jewish leaders to seek Jesus’ death in the first place.” So here we have it: the Jews are anti-Christ and in fact Christ killers. It’s as simple as that, isn’t it?
I am sixty-one, and grew up in Brooklyn, New York, in a mixed neighborhood [Jews and non-Jews]. I dare say there are not many men of my age and background who missed being beaten up and/or insulted as Christ killers. And of course, in the European Jewish experience, the words were soaked in blood and buried in ash. This legacy of contempt, what shall we say about it? We can never say enough.
Suffice it to say, that despite his earlier paragraph decrying anti-Semitism, these references to Jewish leaders’ implacable hostility to Christ and their having him killed, this monolithic polarized portrayal of the Jews as hostile to Christ, and enemies of the gospel, is downright medieval. As with Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck and his report of how he would feel bone weary when in the presence of deep evil, I find myself weary as I write this. This position is dark and depressing.
Although I have chosen to not identify the author of these canards, I can tell you that he is highly educated and has held the highest positions in his theological world. For that reason I am especially astounded at his blatant misuse of Scripture.
While it is true that Paul, in describing his own biography, mentions how zealous he had been for the traditions of his fathers, nowhere in his writings or in all of the Newer Testament do find an indication that he had abandoned that way of life. In fact, he takes explicit steps to indicate the contrary when he makes his trip to Jerusalem recorded in Acts 21.
Our author is projecting here. Although Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles included his opposition of their taking on Torah obedience and Jewish piety as a means of communal inclusion in the people of God, arguing that the work of Messiah on their behalf was sufficient in that regard, Paul never hints in teaching or in living that Jews should live anything but Jewish lives. Because the author we are examining considers the Jewish way of life and the traditions of the Jewish people to be valueless and indeed spiritually obstructing, he assumes that the same was for Paul. He is writing about himself, not Paul.
The author continues to project his opinions, assuming and stating that Yochanan ben Zakkai had “hatred for Jesus,” and that this hatred persists to this day in the Jewish religious establishment. Where shall we begin here? First of all, there is not a scintilla of evidence that ben Zakkai had a personal hatred for Jesus. There is dispute as to whether the birkat ha-minim was aimed explicitly at Messianic Jews or not more widely at all those judged “sectarians” at a time when Judaism was regrouping after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. But even if that were not the case, our author personalizes the matter. Rather than seeing ben Zakkai as operating out of a desire to preserve Jewish communal cohesion in a time of almost unprecedented national crisis, he instead personalizes the matter and makes ben Zakkai and all of religious Jewish leadership to be Jesus haters.
That this is the way he sees all Jewish leaders and religious Jews is clear from his anecdote about his 1968 encounter with a New York rabbi at the Western Wall. When this rabbi walks away and says, “We Jews will never consider that man,” our author takes it as evidence of persisting Jewish antipathy to Christ. He has no sense of context, and finds it noteworthy that the man walked away “irritated.” Well, Mr Author, if the Jews had spent two thousand years claiming that the Christians killed Moses, [!!!], killing, pillaging, persecuting Christians, driving them from place to place, and eventually into the ovens of Auschwitz, Mr Author, is it possible you too might be a trifle “irritated”?
His reference to John 8:44 is a study in superficiality, such as the people who say, “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” I counsel all of us to do a Google search of “John 8:44” “anti-Judaism,” both terms together, to begin to wade through just some of the debate and nuance surrounding this text and its context. For our author to simply take this as prima facie evidence of Jesus’ verdict that the Jews are Satan’s children is chilling in the extreme. No, it is downright scary. I would counsel all of us to immerse ourselves in a protracted study of the polemical contexts from which the Johannine literature emerged.
In talking with a world class Johannine scholar on these matters, she indicated to me that she is still struggling with how to rightly understand these texts in their own context and their application to our own. Too bad our author knows of no such reticence and interpretive struggle.
For those who might think I am too hard on our author, you may be right. I am a very quick on the trigger and reactive person. On the other hand, I find his quotation from Romans 11:28 to be confirmatory of all I have said in this posting. He evokes Paul as agreeing with his portrayal of Jesus’ alleged condemnatory verdict about the Jewish people, God forbid, and in doing so quotes half of a verse, grossly misinterpreting it, and pointedly omitting the second half of the verse which contradicts his misinterpretation!
Romans 11:28, the whole verse, says, “As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.” The very next verse gives the true intent of the quote, which he likewise omits: "For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.”
Instead of taking this opportunity to affirm God’s love for and enduring calling upon the Jewish people, our author takes half of a verse and focuses on the Jews being enemies of the gospel. In Paul’s argument, this “enemy” status is mysterious and functional, it is the outworking of God’s overall saving love for Israel and also for the nations, for God has consigned all to disobedience that He might have mercy on all.
I will close then with this quotation from the end of the eleventh chapter of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, which contradicts and contrasts sharply with the dark picture painted by our miscreant author. May we instead walk in the light of Paul’s words, which begin by chiding his Gentile recipients concerning the anti-Jewish theological assumptions which our author has apparently failed to avoid:
25 Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, 26 and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; 27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." 28 As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. 30 Just as you were once disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.
posted by Stuart Dauermann @ 10:58 AM
2 comments
Let me start with the statements in this diatribe that are measured and commendable:
1) I am sixty-one, and grew up in Brooklyn, New York, in a mixed neighborhood [Jews and non-Jews].
2) In talking with a world class Johannine scholar on these matters, she indicated to me that she is still struggling with how to rightly understand these texts in their own context and their application to our own.
3) For those who might think I am too hard on our author, you may be right.
Now let me be less than comprehensive as I post the statements which are questionable along with a reason for the objection:
1) "it is a virtual certainty that this author sees Judaism as satanic"
You reach this conclusion after building upon your own premises. Why not give the author the benefit of the doubt or keep the issue on how words carry historical meanings, and this author is using words with powerful negative connotations? Why make the subect the author?
2) "What shall we say to this appalling canard?"
Why characterize this statement as a canard (a deliberately misleading fabrication)? The Blood Libel is a canard, what the author expresses is a commonly held position that needs to be corrected.
3) "His mischaracterization of modern Judaism’s Reform, Conservative and Orthodox practitioners is at best hilarious."
Why characterize the author's ill-informed opionon as "at best hilarious." At best it can be said that his view is representative of a segment within Christianity that have not taken the time to understand the beauty of Judaism and the bases for differences within the practices of the religion?
4) "Suffice it to say, that despite his earlier paragraph decrying anti-Semitism, these references to Jewish leaders’ implacable hostility to Christ and their having him killed, this monolithic polarized portrayal of the Jews as hostile to Christ, and enemies of the gospel, is downright medieval."
Why characterize the author as "medieval"? Are you meaning to associate this author with the likes of Torquemada? Are the author's statements common modern misrepresenations or are they peculiar to the author and reminiscent of torture filled times? Or are you prepared to let every person who doesn't hold to your emerging paradigm as medieval?
5)"...he is highly educated and has held the highest positions in his theological world. For that reason I am especially astounded at his blatant misuse of Scripture."
So much for respecting the author, his intentions, or his professional skill.
6)"Our author is projecting here."
I do not think that you made your case about just what the author is "projecting," but since you raised the issue of projection, you beg the question, "What is the author of this blog projecting?" But then again, the blogger says, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they are talking about!” Who exactly said the words, "Father, forgive them, they know not..." Does the author see himself in a similar role, with similar stature, as the original speaker of those words?
On behalf of your readers who are looking for light rather than heat, may I finish with another quote, "I find myself weary as I (read your fulmination)."
I am still growing in being more measured in my rhetoric, so I thank you for the reminder. However, I think you deal unjustly with me here, but more to to the point, I think your critique fails to do justice to what I wrote and to the article to which I responded,
You may be right about the author not seeing Judaism as satanic. Although my judgment was strident, it was not wiithout grounds, especially considering (1) my nuanced knowledge of people in his sub-culture, and (2) his own broad application of John 8:44 "You are of your father the Devil," and (3) the general tenor of his theological statements about the Jews. I will stand corrected that since I *may* be wrong in my conjecture, I could have worded my objection differently.
As to my use of the word "canard," I was using it to mean a slanderous statement, although, after checking, I find Webster's International Dictionary Unabridge says it means more exactly "a false or unfounded report or story," which still applies in this case. Had I used the word "slander" would you have objected? Slanderous was my intended meaning and slanderous is what his article was.
As for his view being a commonly held view which "needs to be corrected," I fear his language and position is far more inflammatory than that, and lies behind enough bloodshed and persecution of the Jews to warrant a stiff rebuke. Let's agree to differ here.
You ask, "Why characterize the author's ill-informed opinon [about the diffeerence between Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jews] as 'at best hilarious.' My reason is that I have never heard anyone explain the denominations of modern Judaism so erroneously, and since I am very well acquainted with the Christian world, I would suggest this is not at all "representative of a segment within Christianity."
What characerizes his polarized and negative portrayal of the Jews as "medieval" is clear to me and I would suggest to most of our readers. To term the idea of Jews being implacable enemies of Christ and Christ killers as "common modern misconceptions" is I fear, pushing him away with a reed, that is, giving him too light a reposte. Let's agree to disagree again.
I certainly do NOT consider every person who does not adhere to my emerging paradigm as medieval, and should not even have to say so! However, I reserve the right to use strong language concerning people who categorically represent Jews and Jewish leaders as Christ killers and haters of Christ or enemies of Christ, Even if this view is common,. this does not make it any more acceptable, nor does its ubiquity modify its backwardness, nor make it advisable for me to use more measured rhetoric.
You and my readers might be interested to know that just today I was sitting across a library table from a world class Christian Ethicist, Dr. Glenn H. Stassen. I showed him the quotation for which I wrote my comments.
He was equally appalled.
Thank you for this opportunity to clarify my intent. Perhaps I will learn to be more restrained in my language.
Chag Pesach kasher v'sameach!
Post a Comment
<< Home