Jews for Jesus

[Jnyusa]

Anth: [But I still can go back to that church and feel some level of comfort, of BELONGING there, because I know all the rote prayers by heart, and can chant them in cadence with the stranger standing next to me.

This is a really good point, Anth. I've never been to a service designed for Jews for Jesus. Does anyone know if they say traditional prayers? Use Hebrew in their service? Hold a Kiddush?

It makes sense that people would want a service as reminiscent of the Jewish service as possible, if that's where they are coming from, though I still think that their beliefs make them a different religion.

But my impression is that they have simply joined churches and would be indistinguishable from other Christian sects except for the name.

Hal: to the historical options you described I would have to say, "none of the above." It was not Jesus who did away with the dietary laws or installed a Christmas tree in every home.

I think your appreciation for the ancient roots of Christianity is admirable (and I wish more Christians felt like that) but I don't think it invalidates Christianity to say that it has changed over the centuries. My personal point of view is that this is one of the great strengths of Christianity, that it has been flexible enough to speak to people worldwide who have nothing cultural in common with the originator of the religion.

Jn

[halplm]

Can I just say I really don't like the word "sect" I realize it's accurate, and I've used it myself many times for clarity sake (and because denomination is a LONG word ), but to me it is roughly equivilent to "cult." Probably because I've lived in California for a long time and some mexican culture has rubbed off on me, and in Mexico, "sect" has the same negative connotatiosn as "cult"

Anyway, it doesn't really matter, but I think in the case of different branches of Protestant Christians, the proper term is "Denomination."

Edit:I'll get back to you on that, Jnyusa, I have to run.

[Primula Baggins]

Anthy, it's interesting that your parents feel you shouldn't come to their church because you have "strayed." Don't Episcopalians officially welcome everyone who claims to be a Christian? Lutherans do—my branch, anyway—even for communion.

I know that Lutherans, anyway, are welcome at Episcopal churches and can take communion, and that ordained ministers from each church can serve in the other. If they'll let riffraff like me in, why wouldn't they welcome you?

[Jnyusa]

Hal, I won't use that word if you feel it has a negative connotation.

LOL, I'm curious whether anyone else thinks of 'denomination' as being bigger than a 'sect.' Lutherans (e.g.) in my mind are a denomination, but a church unaffiliated with any mainstream Protestant thought (we have a lot of them in Ohio) is sect in my mind. Perhaps this distinction is without basis and unjustified.

Jn

[anthriel]

Well, I'm not sure it's a problem with the church of England has with me, Prim... I think it's a problem my parents have with me, and the decisions I have made about where I attend services.

I attend a non-denominational church, which my parents have characterized as a "cult". They used the word. Believe it or not. They are more accepting of my sister-in-law as a Mormon than they are of me as what they feel is some sort of bible groupie. They fact that I purchased a study bible 12 years ago and I... you know... read it? freaks them out to no end.

Carrying an actual bible to actual church is beyond the limits of normal Episcopal behavior, for them. So, ipso facto... I am not an Episcopalian, not anymore.

And yet... we all believe in the Christ as the saviour, do we not? Should what I have in my hands at church separate us that dramatically?

It does, for them. This is why I can so clearly see the divides of "religious" beliefs vs. "cultural" beliefs. "Culturally", I have strayed. In the religious sense? Not as much straying from the fold, I would think. Unless the bible is really all that different from the Book of Common Prayer that they use? I don't really think it is... it's just that I wanted to read the Bible.

The fact that I wanted to wear a collared, long sleeved white shirt, with a pair of dark cranberry dress pants, to THEIR church, embarrased them to the point of forbidding me to go. That would be outside the comfort range of the CULTURE of their church, in which the men wear suits and the women wear expensive dresses and jewelry every Sunday, out of "respect". Respect for who? God? Does he really care what I wear? Does he REALLY?

But the other people in the CHURCH would care, I guess, and feel that my "casual" dress was somehow inappropriate for attending... that I would be discordant with the culture of the church. I dunno. Seems weird to me. (And that outfit seemed pretty dressy to me, actually...)

I will try not to derail this discussion any more. I know very little about Jews for Jesus, and I clearly understand the arguments against it being valid. But given my own brush with "culture" of a religion v. "religion" of a religion, I did recognize enough in their plight to feel a bit of empathy for them.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Wow, I never expected to come back to this thread and find five pages of posts, when it was on the first page when I left it yesterday evening. It certainly seems to have touched a vein. I am wondering whether it would be better to move it to Tol Eressëa?

[vison]

I know a woman who solemnly assured me that Buddhism is a cult. So there you are. I mentioned a book I'd read wherein Jesus had gone to India and studied Buddhism (I know, it was only fiction, but it was a pretty good book) and she nearly fainted with horror.

The outward forms of "religion" matter much more to some people than the actual message. I used to sneer pretty nastily at such people and hold them up in my own mind as hypocritical and small-minded and maybe they are. But some people just can't let go of the outward forms, their sense of self-worth is inextricably tangled up with dress and behavior and "what will people think". It is a sad flaw, but what can you do? Maybe some of the message sinks in. These people live in fear, and when you're afraid you are rigid and unloving and watchful. What are they afraid of? Themselves, that's what.

I have a neighbour who didn't speak to her own daughter for five years! Two grandchildren born and this woman wouldn't unbend, proud of her stiff neck. Then my daughter-in-law died and I said to my neighbour, "That could have been your girl." She was very angry with me, but after a day or so she did what I had been hoping she would do and called her daughter. They are now close again, and she is a happy grandmother.

What was her daughter's crime? I never really knew. But it would have been, knowing my neighbour, some miserable triviality such as Anthriel describes, wearing the "wrong" clothes, or something equally meaningless. Thinking of my own children, I can truthfully say that even when they did something that was "really" wrong, I couldn't not "speak" to them. There have been times I wished I could.

The story of the Prodigal son is, in my heathen eyes, the most meaningful story in the bible. It speaks to me in a way only the parent of a prodigal can understand. It isn't that I needed or wanted a "guide" to what to do or think or feel, just that I felt an incredible connection with that long-ago father and his wretched son.

Several times here and on other message boards people have described being more or less shunned or cast out by their parents for things that seem so peculiar to me! Joining a different church? Be thankful that your child can think for herself, that she still cares about spiritual matters! Coming out as gay? Be thankful your daughter is still a good, kind, loving girl! WHY can't parents look at their children and think, "You know, I don't agree with you, but you are still my child and I still love you."

Think of people who have to visit their son in prison, as a friend of mine does. Her son is accused of murder and he is likely guilty, and yet she and her husband still visit him, still care for him. He's a sinner, all right, but his mum and dad haven't washed their hands of him.

Sorry to Osgiliate this thread. I know it has nothing to do with Jews for Jesus. Except, maybe, I guess, that if Jesus is the guy he's supposed to be, he'll be able to deal with them.

[JewelSong]

I'm curious whether anyone else thinks of 'denomination' as being bigger than a 'sect.' Lutherans (e.g.) in my mind are a denomination, but a church unaffiliated with any mainstream Protestant thought (we have a lot of them in Ohio) is sect in my mind. Perhaps this distinction is without basis and unjustified.

That's how I have always thought of the two words. "Demonination" means a large body within the mainstream - Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodists are all Protestant denominations.

(denomination: A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.)

A sect, to me, would be a smaller, more specific group. I think a sect could be part of a larger denomination...in fact, I believe that the word has the same root as "section."

(sect: A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination)

"Cult" has negative connotations for me, one that has something to do with control and false leaders.

(cult: A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. )

(All definitions from dictionary.com.)

I don't find anything objectionable about the word "sect" - as it is clearly different from the larger denomination.


Anthy, it's too bad about your parents...and about that church, if it is really true about such a "dress code." And no, I don't think God gives a hoot what anyone wears to church.

[yovargas]

Several times here and on other message boards people have described being more or less shunned or cast out by their parents for things that seem so peculiar to me!

My mom cried for days when she found out my brother drank beer.
I plan on coming out to her sometime this year, possibly when I see them this May.

[/osgilliate]

[Primula Baggins]

Voronwë, this thread could certainly have happened in Tol Eressëa, but does that necessarily make it out of place here?

Anthy, I take it back—that church wouldn't let me in! I haven't worn a dress to church since—well, I guess I wear one most Easters, but that's about it. Many people of all ages wear jeans. The kids wear jeans when they aren't wearing shorts. Someone once remarked on that to our pastor, and his answer was, "But the kids are here."

Vison, it's wonderful that you were able to use your own sad loss to push your neighbor toward healing her family. So much time gets wasted on anger!

[Belated edit to add a for yov—that's going to be hard, but it's good that you're doing it.]

[anthriel]

Dammit, that does it.


<sw0000n> for vison...

[nerdanel]

Voronwë,

In light of the fact that there are no "Jews for Jesus" here, requesting the special protections of Tol Eressëa to discuss their faith, I'd strongly prefer to keep this thread here, to permit more free(ly critical) evaluation of this group than might seem appropriate in TE. I haven't felt that anyone was upset or hurt over the way the discussion has unfolded in this forum.

[halplm]

Hal: to the historical options you described I would have to say, "none of the above." It was not Jesus who did away with the dietary laws or installed a Christmas tree in every home.

I think your appreciation for the ancient roots of Christianity is admirable (and I wish more Christians felt like that) but I don't think it invalidates Christianity to say that it has changed over the centuries. My personal point of view is that this is one of the great strengths of Christianity, that it has been flexible enough to speak to people worldwide who have nothing cultural in common with the originator of the religion.

Jn

I'm not entirely sure which of my statements you are responding to, but I'll address these thoughts as I can.

Obviously Jesus had nothing to do with Christmas Trees. The Christmas tree is most certainly more related to Pagan winter solstice rituals from who knows when. The date of Christmas being celebrated is completely unrelated to any more accurate date for Christ's actual Birth. Christmas has developed all of it's own tradition and ritual, and has caused many people to forget it's purpose... which is to celebrate Jesus's Birth. Doing anything on Christmas, however, is not required for being a Christian, so I'm a little confused why you bring it up.

And no, Jesus didn't throw out dietary laws, but he did make them irrelevant with respect to a relationship with God. You yourself have said that many of the laws were more about government and economics than about atonement and a relationship with God. Jesus merely clarified that even further. No longer was the rule of law what mattered in God's eyes, it was people's spiritual identity that mattered.

The reason Christianity is so flexible, and has developed so many diverse traditions and cultures, is that it is at its core a VERY simple belief system. You don't have to study it for a lifetime to get the important message of God's Love and Forgiveness. It comes from truths that people can see in themselves, across all cultures.

CHURCHES and denominations and sects, protistants and Catholics, all of that, are human inventions to try and institutionalize that core message, and use it (not always in a bad way) for matters outside of what it's meant to deal with, like government and economics.

Yes, Christian Culture has changed, continues to change, and many times not for the better... but what a CHRISTIAN IS... has never changed. In 2000 years what makes a Christian is exactly the same and can never change.

[anthriel]

The kids wear jeans when they aren't wearing shorts. Someone once remarked on that to our pastor, and his answer was, "But the kids are here."

Well, that philosophy just makes SENSE to me. It is true of my "current" church, the cultish one , as well. And, really, if one takes a long second to think about the "big picture", isn't it more respectful to be at church at all than to be so careful about enforcing what is worn there?

Jewel, I totally agree I hesitate to be too forceful about my negative feelings about what my parents believe, though, because if I truly believe that everyone should be allowed to follow their own path, which I do, then I need to honor their choice to follow theirs (however dorky I truly believe some of their rules to be ). If it works for them, then I am profoundly glad they are there.

The fact that I am no longer welcome there is sad to me, but, hey, I am happy where I am. I just pine, a bit, for the latent "culture" of the Episcopalian church that still is lodged in my heart... I guess I will never again feel as much like I "belong" to a church, since my past and my present are not the same. I wish I could have preserved most of the "specialness" of the church I was raised in, while also being allowed to question and grow spiritually, and follow MY path.

Their decision to exclude me feels punative, to me. But perhaps to them, the difference between where I am and where I was seems as clear as the Jewish people feel the gulf between Jews for Jesus and modern Judaism is. My parents feel I have moved away from my church, and if I chose to stay where I am, I can't have it both ways. I feel like the differences between our choices are really "cultural", and modest (and, I have to say, the difference between Jews for Jesus and modern Jews certainly seems much bigger to me than what my parents are seeing). But, hey, well, that's the way they feel.

I don't blame them. I forgive them any pain their decisions have caused me. I feel like anyone who has ever asked for forgiveness needs to be willing to forgive others, even though it may be difficult to do.

And I've asked for forgiveness a LOT.




Yov: You are such a special person... surely your parents know that! I hope the best for you in such a difficult spot, and will pray for you, if you are comfortable with that.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, plenty of churches have fairly elaborate and highly exclusive definitions of what constitutes a Christian. There are plenty of Christian churches where I could not take communion, including all Catholic churches—meaning that I am not a Christian in their view.

So not every Christian has so simple a definition, and the various definitions have certainly changed through history.

(I agree with you that it ought to be that simple, and I wish it were so for all churches.)

edit: Cross-posted with Anthy. I feel lucky* that I've been able to stay happily in the same kind of church all my life, so I think I know what you mean. And your parents' church sounds really atypical of Episcopal churches I've visited or heard of. That's too bad.



*Except for the lutefisk thing.

[halplm]

Anthy, anyone that excludes YOU is missing out on a lot .

I just happened to read this last night (I too, like to read my bible , though I don't do it often enough), and it fits oh so perfectly with what we're discussing I can't help but think God led me to it.

Romans 14
The Weak and the Strong
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Romans 15
1We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. 2Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." 4For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

5May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

7Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 8For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs 9so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:
"Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
I will sing hymns to your name." 10Again, it says,
"Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people." 11And again,
"Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and sing praises to him, all you peoples." 12And again, Isaiah says,
"The Root of Jesse will spring up,
one who will arise to rule over the nations;
the Gentiles will hope in him."

13May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is quoted from here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31;

[Primula Baggins]

One of the things I've always found interesting about that passage is that Paul urges Roman Christians who did not follow Jewish dietary law to follow it rather than tempt observant church members to lapse.

[halplm]

Yes, it is quite interesting. So often we get caught up in saying "Oh I don't believe in that, I'm going to do it MY way," when it's really just as easy and much more loving to go with people's stricter beliefs when with them. It doesn't hurt us, and makes them more comfortable.

[Frelga]

I guess I'm asking - if you break with the traditional definition, what new standard are you using to evaluate whether the "Jews for Jesus" are Jewish? (This question goes for Impy, too.) And if the answer is that we look to whether the born Jew's beliefs are "foreign to the very core of Judaism"...then is there any general test for what beliefs are so foreign?

Actually I do stand by traditional definition, which long predates the Orthodox.

I did some research on this "once a Jew, always a Jew" concept, in actual print books so no links.

First off – Faramond, this addresses your question, too – the sources I read referred to Jewish people rather than Jewish ethnicity. The difference is subtle but significant – ethnicity is in your genes, but to belong to people you actually have to be an active member of a community.

A Jew who converts to another religion does not lose his rights and obligations in secular community. For example, he still has to get a divorce from Religious court to dissolve a Jewish marriage. Nor does he lose his part of the Covenant – if he decides to return to Judaism, he does not have to undergo conversion.

But until he returns, he loses his place in the religious community. He is not counted toward minyan – the ten worshippers (men only for Orthodox) that are necessary for certain prayers, he is not called up for Torah readings, and so on. Notice that these prohibitions imply that he is not barred from attending services (as indeed who could stop him?).

What general test I use? I don't want to go there, TP. I'll talk to you offline, if you'd like. Because what you are asking me is what it is about Christianity that I as a Jew do not accept, and the answer is bound to upset somebody.

I'll say one thing – anyone who says Jesus "brought" or "added" love to Judaism doesn't know the first thing about Judaism.

And I'm so proud I said something capable of short-circuiting that magnificent mind of yours.

Isn't not believing in God about as far from the core of Judaism as you can get?

I think the answer to that is that challenging the existence of God is IMO a lesser deviation from the core of any religion than claiming that the nature of God is different than that religion perceives it.

I think that what the Rabbis mean when they say that a Jewish convert to Christianity is still a Jew is that they could return to Judaism at any time and be received as an already-Jewish member.

ITA. With RETURN being the key word.

I guess I'd rather not see Jews as an ethnic group, even if someone can prove to me they are. I just think religions and ethnic groups should be separate.

I am curious to hear why you feel this way.

But your point is that only the Jews for Jesus are claiming to be religiously Jewish, while the Jews not for God aren't claiming to be religiously Jewish. One involves deception and the other doesn't.

I wouldn't say it's a deception. As any Jew by birth or conversion, a Jewish atheist has a place in Jewish community. As for religious community, an atheist would presumably not WANT to pray in minyan, or go up for Torah reading. Like a lapsed Catholic, I suppose, he is simply a non-observant Jew who belongs to no other community of worship. And he can claim his place in the religious community at any time.

I thought it worked the same way in Christianity – someone baptized at birth who becomes an atheist needs only to return to Church to reclaim his place? I'm curious, what would be the rule for a Christian-born convert to Judaism who wants to return?

If Jesus added to and changed Judaism, then how can one believe he is the Messiah?

You put your finger on it, Hal. But that's a question for a Christian to answer, not for me.

Anthriel,

I am wondering whether it would be better to move it to Tol Eressëa?

Please don't. I couldn't say half the things in this post if it was in TE. Here, we can discuss things freely, and I am very much impressed with the level of discussion.

WHY can't parents look at their children and think, "You know, I don't agree with you, but you are still my child and I still love you."

Why indeed.



ETA:

Anthy, anyone that excludes YOU is missing out on a lot

Indeed!

Hal, I just wanted to tell you - I know this is a difficult discussion for you, and you've handled it with superb tact, IMO.

[Jnyusa]

Yov: Oh man, good luck! We’ll really be rooting for a positive outcome.

vison: I agree with you that focusing on superficialities is a symptom of fear. I think all people want to define their ‘group’ in a way that allows themselves to measure up. And for lots of people, fitting in with the exterior norms of the group is the only way they feel entirely confident that they will be able to measure up.

Voronwë: For the reason tp cited I would prefer to keep this thread in Lasto. If we had JFJ’s on the board then I would definitely say to move it to TE.

Hal: And no, Jesus didn't throw out dietary laws, but he did make them irrelevant with respect to a relationship with God. You yourself have said that many of the laws were more about government and economics than about atonement and a relationship with God. Jesus merely clarified that even further. No longer was the rule of law what mattered in God's eyes, it was people's spiritual identity that mattered.

Hal, I'm pretty sure that this is inaccurate, but I would have to defer to Kushana for the historical order of events. Haven't read the New Testament in many years, but I recall very specific passages where the decision was made by the apostles to admit gentiles without requiring them to convert to Judaism first, and abolishing the dietary restrictions for non-Jewish followers. This did not happen during Jesus' lifetime, by my recollection.

Jn