On Controversy

While flipping through my Ben Zion Bokser siddur looking for a liturgy-related subject to post on, I came across this bit of Pirkei Avot (5:20) and found it particularly appropriate:

A controversy for the sake of God will lead to abiding results. But a controversy that is not for the sake of God will not lead to abiding results. What manner of controversy is for God’s sake? The controversy between Hillel and Shammai. What manner of controversy is not for God’s sake? The controversy of Korah and his associates (Numbers 16:3)

Messianic as Meta-Denominational Choice

My last attempt at discussing framing didn’t go over so well, so let’s try again.

“Messianic Judaism” is a term that I’ve had an interesting relationship with, but I figure since we don’t really have any other option, I’ll use it. Many people position the label “Messianic” as a denominational/movement alternative alongside Conservative, Orthodox, Reconstructionist and Reform. This characterization frequently comes up in discussions of the legitimacy of Messianic Judaism, the thought being that if these are all valid expressions of Judaism, then ours is as well. However, as Messianic Judaism continues to grow and develop, it becomes more apparent that being “Messianic”, i.e., following Yeshua, is a meta-denominational choice. While following Yeshua excludes certain options in Jewish thought, individual believers and congregations often choose different approaches to Judaism that reflect the internal diversity present in the Jewish community. As Messianic Judaism continues to position itself within greater Judaism, our goal should not be to adopt a single homogeneous approach, but to replicate Jewish diversity. We may argue with each other about those approaches, but this is an internal Jewish conversation and is not often grounded specifically in the Apostolic Writings simply because they describe a different place and time.

In “Scattered Thoughts” I gave the example of my friend Yoel and I:

My friend Yoel is Orthodox: he doesn’t approve of women making aliyah to the Torah, he believes in Torah min ha-shamayim (written and oral). He is politically conservative (but not in the fanatical, paranoid way that I find common to the Messianic cultural entity). He would probably think that I’m a kofer if he didn’t have a personal heresy of his own. I am… a denominational mutt: the kind of person who likes the full Torah portion read, the full repetition of the Amidah (Shacharit and Musaf), and Carlebach-style prayer but doesn’t care if a man or a woman is leading it; the kind of person for whom conservadox observance is the end goal, but structures his approach to that goal in terms of pragmatism and meaning, within a framework of de facto personal autonomy (that would be the Reform influence), the kind of person who assumes that evolution describes scientific reality and then proceeds to grapple with the questions it raises, the kind of person for whom the authority of Scriptural text is not predicated on its historical accuracy. He and I both follow Yeshua.

Yoel isn’t planning on recognizing my giyyur either (we have different views on what constitutes kabbalat ‘ol mitzvot), but, nevertheless, we manage to co-operate on certain issues. We study the Apostolic Writings together (which has been both greatly enlightening and amusing to me), we pray for each other, etc. However, these various forms of co-operation do not serve to gloss over our very serious hashkafic differences. Gene hit the nail on the head with the implications of framing Messianic as an orientation and not a denominational approach for communal structure when he commented, “Perhaps the best solution is not to squeeze everyone into the same mold, but to simply have different kinds of MJ congregations that have different minhag, just like in the real Jewish world, yet united in common Jewishness and Yeshua.” However, I do think that our shared faith in Yeshua should give us a concerted push towards pluralism both in how congregations of different orientations relate to each other and in how people of different orientations relate to each other in the same congregation. We should both actively strive to be as broad-based as possible (which is surprisingly easy for the non-Orthodox, the aesthetics of prayer is often a much more divisive issue than anything religious), while being willing to have a separate minyan in the library or even viewing the occasional separation not as a violent schism but as the preference of a group for a congregation that meets their needs. Also, I think the implication is that our rabbinical (and one day, hopefully, cantorial) schools should be framed more like AJR than JTS, as they are training rabbis to serve in a diverse Jewish environment and not in a (more or less) monolithic Jewish denominational setting. Ultimately, hopefully we can persist in our different approaches to the intersection of Judaism and Yeshua-faith while co-operating in our shared commitments, instead of assuming that there will be only one Jewish answer to the question (something that those in my milieu are frequently guilty of).

I Am…

Since this blog has taken on a pretty negative spin as of late, I think I’ll try to list the way that any number of groups have influenced me. Just for the record, I use “am” in a very loose sense of the word, inspired no doubt by Brian McLaren.

• Conservative: I am committed to Jewish observance, open to the insights of critical scholarship, and willing to submit halacha to degrees of flexibility. I am a halachic egalitarian, meaning that I support the full ritual participation of women not because of a prior commitment but because I believe it to be permitted based on interpretation of Jewish law.
• Messianic Jewish: Despite my occasional bits of frustration, ultimately I view myself in continuity with Levertoff, Lichtenstein, Juster, Kinzer, and all those who have tried to work out how Judaism and Yeshua can and should intersect.  Some of the songs I acquired during my Messianic stint still move me, and I do get the hankering for old-fashioned praise-and-dance every now and again. And while I don’t always share Messianic worship aesthetics, the strong sense of a providential God, the willingness to be marginalized by Judaism and Christianity while standing in the middle of both, the willingness to do things differently, and the unabashed welcome to Gentiles have deeply shaped me.
• Orthodox: I believe strongly in a personal God who acts in human history, I believe strongly in a theological core to Jewish identity. Culture is great, ethnicity is great, language is great, the land of Israel is great, but ultimately, these components of the evolving religious civilization of Judaism are rooted in the covenantal encounters described in the Tanakh and in the ongoing dialogue with God throughout the generations. I greatly enjoy enthusiastic prayer (on the Carlebach level) and full traditional liturgies, and while Orthodoxy has no monopoly on either of those things, I first acquired them there.
• Reconstructionist: This one is probably the most strained, but Kaplan did emphasize the fact that Jewish life was not solely religious, but had a strong cultural component. Also, my approach to liturgy is to modify one’s intentions rather than modify the text, although Kaplan’s problem with the liturgy was a personal God and mine is admittedly much less problematic.
• Reform: I’m committed to informed autonomy (there is noone with the authority to make halachic decisions for everyone), progressive reinterpretation of Torah (every generation adds their own layer to Torah, instead of the idea that we are all walking backwards from Sinai), social justice, and engagement with the world beyond our particular religious boundaries. Reform doesn’t have a monopoly on those either, but I acquired them through friends with (an admittedly strained) relationship to that movement. Also, like many of my Reform friends, I identify with the ideals of my movement but not its institutions, I think my movement could stand being more traditionally Jewish and less Christian in how it worships, and I find my primary identity in the broader Jewish community, while still struggling with the movement that, despite my protestations, helped form me.

Framing the “Messianic Movement”

The “Messianic Movement” is an artificial construct that lumps together groups of vastly different orientation and theology within a single shared framework, primarily based on cultural concerns and shared historical origins. It seems to me that, rather than theology, the Messianic world is linked by a number of cultural references. These include a genre of music, a style of worship dance, an emphasis on certain Jewish ritual practices (Passover sedarim, the Torah service) and external symbols (kippot, tallitot, shofarot), a shared Christian Zionism, and a shared historical narrative. As much as I’m hesitant to demarcate communities based on theology, I’m curious to see if anyone can articulate a theological definition for the Messianic Movement that would include what most people would recognize as the Messianic Movement without also encompassing Christianity (this, by the way, being a definition in which everyone would agree on the meaning of the terms). A few specific examples of this lumping-together being harmful come to mind. While many who will read this blog will disagree with me on Gentiles and Torah, I think we can agree it is wrong for leaders of Messianic Jewish synagogues to deliberately obfuscate their views on Gentiles and Torah and intentionally perpetuate inconsistency amongst communal leadership, to get more butts in chairs (and by extension, dollars in the tzedakah box). Dallas has so many Messianic congregations in part because every new splinter group is an unstable mix of very-differently oriented people. Maybe those who identify with the construct of the “Messianic Movement” should let it whither away and find some better vocabulary for expressing the cultural commonalities that does not lead to confusion.

On the subject of that Messianic cultural identity, I am neutral. I don’t identify with it, most of my memories of participating in communities that share it are of being disgruntled, but some of them are quite pleasant. I am, however, not interested (necessarily) in its perpetuation. If there comes a day when Lamb and Paul Wilbur are not listened to, I will not be particularly upset. However, I am interested in the carrying-out of what I see as two very important goals: ingathering the lost sheep of the House of Israel (to Jewish identification, Judaism, and Yeshua) and re-awakening the Church to her estranged First Testament and to the continuing work of God amidst the Jewish people who gave it to her. I am excited by developments that show God using the Messianic Movement to achieve that goal, but I am interested in the goals, not the movement. In my case, it seems that the current compartmentalization of my religious life (synagogue, havurah, the occasional guest-spot at my friends’ house church) is a better reflection of my commitment to those goals than participation in any of the local Messianic options. However, that lack of shared culture means that I personally have little in common with people who promote very different theological agendas while ostensibly sharing the term “Messianic” with me.

That being said, I think its wrong to assume that the existing cultural forms are the only legitimate way, or even a legitimate way, to perpetuate the goals. (By the way, this is equally applicable to many other situations, both Jewish and Christian). While some people may have their spiritual needs met through their weekly dose of “Messianic praise” and “Davidic dance” punctuated by an hourlong sermon, there are not many Jews amongst them, and there are certainly not any Jews who are not already inside the borders of the Messianic world. Communities like my havurah, without Messianic cultural markers or affiliation with Messianic institutions, are no less “Messianic” (in the sense of commitment to Yeshua) than those communities that have either of those or both. Regardless of one’s opinion on the existing cultural forms, neither continuing to define one’s religious identity (and the boundaries of what one considers “us”) on their basis or limiting corporate Jewish Yeshua-faith to those forms are good ideas.

On “Scattered Thoughts”

There was an angry tirade that I posted here last night, mostly in response to a friend from middle school. For those of you whose comments I didn’t get a chance to read, I apologize for deleting them, but there was nothing constructive about that post and I honestly did not intend to publish it in the first place. I weighed the decision to trash it and ultimately, I came up in favor. However, I am still thinking about the following areas:

• the validity of the construct of a “Messianic Movement” that encompasses both Messianic Judaism and those who seek to promote Gentile Torah observance
• the idea that Messianic synagogues should encompass all flavors of Jews, and that inter-Jewish distinctions should “melt away” upon finding Yeshua
• how we present our the Messiah-ship of Yeshua, and who we rely on to defend it
• Hashivenu

If you want to re-comment some of what you had already said, feel free. Although this blog may take the shape of a series of “angry tirades”, anger is the emotion that best encourages me to place fingers to keyboard and post. Those same ideas may re-appear here, but with a greater willingness to think before I hit “Publish” (or before I fail to immediately run to the dashboard and hit “Trash”, in this case).

“Outside the Camp”

In recent months, I have heard the term “outside the camp” used in numerous settings in reference to our calling as Messianic Jews. Allow me to begin here by sharing a few thoughts on usage of the term. In Torah, there are eighteen passages relating to going outside the camp. There is only one in the Nevi’im (Prophets) in Yehoshua, and only one in the New Covenant writings.¹ Most references to going outside the camp are in connection with burning the remnants of sacrificed animals. Another common reason is quarantine, including both those with contagious infections and contaminated warriors returning from battle. Other reasons include execution, and relieving yourself.

Hebrews (13:11-17) calls us to go outside the camp to Yeshua. This is in reference to the place of his execution being outside the city. It also speaks of his blood cleansing us as did the blood of those animals burned outside the camp. This is not calling us to social disengagement from our people in the “camp” or community, but rather it calls us to find our cleansing in Yeshua. We may bear the disgrace he bore by identifying him as the one who cleanses us. But there is no instruction here to disengage from the community. In fact, the same passage in Hebrews immediately instructs us to, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority”. (v.17) Rather than running from any disgrace of association with Yeshua, we are to remain in the community and bear it, continuing to submit to our leaders. Torat HaShlichim (the Teaching of the Emissaries) is here setting a boundary for us that we must indeed obey our leaders but to the limit of not forsaking Yeshua. If we turn away from the Jewish community and our leaders, we avoid bearing disgrace. If we face the community and obey our leaders anyway, we may bear disgrace. To disregard our leaders would be a disgraceful thing, but this is not the disgrace we are called to. Again, we are not called to social disengagement from the Jewish community. Rather, we should follow the leaders of our community to the limit of not forsaking Yeshua.

Going outside the camp is not for the purpose of forsaking the camp, much less creating a new camp. It is rather for the purpose of being cleansed, healed, and restored that one might return to the camp in teshuva (repentance). The “camp” is not a bad place. It is a good place where we belong, and Yeshua enables us to return cleansed and whole. The purpose of going outside the camp is teshuva, not permanent separation. As Yeshua is not hanging in a permanent state of execution, our journey to meet him there is not permanent. We return with him!

- Gavriel Gefen in “Postcongregational Messianic Judaism: A call for an “insider” expression of Messianic Judaism”

Thoughts on Giyyur

“Non-Jews and Messianic Synagogues – Ready for yet another internet smackdown? Ovadia, a teenage gentile who is in the process of formally converting to Messianic Judaism, relates his experience as a non-Jew visiting a Messianic synagogue. While it was welcoming, the author derides it as not properly distinguishing between Jews and gentiles. Messianic gentiles shouldn’t be counted to a minyan, should not wear tefillin, should not lead prayer in a Messianic congregation, and should not count himself among those “chosen by God from all nations”, argues Ovadia. He describes such things as “wrong and indefensible”.”

- Judah Gabriel’s description of my post on his blog

Let me start by correcting something very important. I am not in the process of converting “to Messianic Judaism”. This is both an important matter of framing and an issue of my religious identity. To give an example, no one converts to “Chabad”, they convert to Judaism. The rabbi who co-ordinates the conversion and the members of the bet din that oversee it may daven Nusach Ari and read Tanya and be Jews of a Hasidic orientation who follow the Lubavitcher Rebbe, but they are not converting someone to “Chabad”, they, as Jews, are converting someone to Judaism. That convert may become a Lubavitcher chassid, or they may choose any number of Orthodox paths. In the same way, I am not converting to “Messianic Judaism”, I am converting to Judaism, or to put it in terms that more accurately reflect the fact that Judaism is a religious civilization, a tribe, and not just a religion: I am joining the Jewish people. Also, I don’t have anything to do with “Messianic Judaism” in a recognizable sense. My primary communities are Conservative and unaffiliated synagogues, and I engage with Yeshua-faith through a loose relationship with a havurah that frequently voices opinions like “Messianic Judaism should die”. Some remarkable coincidence notwithstanding, the rabbis on my bet din will not be followers of Yeshua. A conversion to “Messianic Judaism” would be meaningless from the standpoint of my synagogues and my friends (both religious and not). For the record, I am not converting to any specific denomination of Judaism. I am pursuing a conversion to Judaism under the structure of Jewish law.

Digression: I correct people who say I am “converting to Conservative Judaism” too, although that is usually phrasing that comes from non-Jews. “Going through a Conservative conversion” is a more frequently heard, less inaccurate characterization.

Daniel raised the issue of my specific convictions about Yeshua from the perspective of halachic validity of my conversion. My logic is (in summary) as follows: 1) the beit din will be acting according to Jewish law, 2) I will not lie to the beit din {I am withholding the details of how this is the case}, 3) my conversion is valid according to Jewish law. Yes, I understand there are complications.

Side-note: I believe that non-Jewish people are called by God from all nations, I just disagree that upon receiving that call, they become Israelites. The Jewish people is not called from individuals as a collection of individuals but has a distinct collective call that was ratified at Sinai (“asher bachar banu mi-kol ha-amim v’natan lanu et-Torato“).

Formspring

If you have anything you want to ask me, go ahead and ask.

http://www.formspring.me/orgadol

Apologies

I’m sorry I have not been actively blogging lately. School has resumed and is proceeding to eat up an increasingly large portion of my life, I’ve been sick, and I’ve also been putting my energy towards other religious pursuits. One of my rabbanim has assigned me Mesillat Yesharim by Luzzatto (the Ramchal) to read in preparation for my conversion. Unlike most of the other works that I’ve read, which have been either practical, halachic, or scholarly, this is an ethical text that cannot be rapidly devoured. It demands a careful read, and has taken much of the time that would otherwise have gone to this blog.

If any of you have ideas for future posts, I’m very open to suggestion. Shabbat Shalom everyone.

More Thoughts on the Definition of Israel

My last post generated a record number of comments for my blog. However, I don’t view it as a personal success. Instead of making a contribution to the ongoing conversation of the Messianic Jewish movement, I instead hosted yet another location for the roving Internet smackdown over non-Jewish identity in Messiah and the definition (or re-definition) of Israel. Maybe Gene Shlomovich and even Derek Leman will make an appearance and the group will be complete. Although I will make my best effort to respond to comments on that post, if we could please refrain from re-hashing the  same arguments that failed to convince each other on many other websites and blogs, that would be great. I am not some ignoramus who is blind to the compelling proof for one variety of supersessionism or another. I’ve read all the arguments (I own The Mystery of the Gospel, amongst others), and I come down on the side of those who support, for lack of a better term, a bilateral ecclesiology. For me “Israelite” and “Jew” are synonyms, “the people of Israel” and “the Jewish people” are synonyms (with the possible exception of Paul’s “Israel of God” in Galatians that I think Stern deservedly puts in quotes), “Israel” is not synonymous with “those right standing before God” or “the people of God”, and Gentiles are not “sons of Abraham” beyond the sense in which Abraham is “ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them”. Although I can try to argue with people about it, honestly there are people out there on the Internet more qualified to address this than I am, because in real life, I don’t really have to deal with this particular aberration (since no one has, of yet, tried to argue that circumcision is incumbent on non-Jews, I will refrain from “heresy”).  To me, the radical thing about the apostolic proclamation on Gentiles is not that Gentiles are Israel, but that Gentiles get the same standing before God as Israel without being Israel, and get what Wyschogrod termed “associate membership” in the people of Israel for free. “