NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/alt/messiani/2564

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-29 | 12.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!udel!gvls1!tredysvr!portland!tom
From: [e-mail] (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Anti-Semitism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:14:14 GMT
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology
Lines: 218

Since my brother in Christ, Harvey Smith, in all Christian charity has been
kind enough to label me as an anti-Semite simply because I disagree with
his theories on Judaism, Israel and the Church, I thought I'd repost an
article that I submitted to a.m some time ago.

For the new readers, I hope it helps those with an open mind understand
what's happening here.

----------------------------------------------------------------

      TO THOSE WHO WONDER IF RECONSTRUCTIONISM IS ANTI-SEMITIC
                      by Steve M. Schlissel

[The following is reprinted with permission from the publisher.  It appears
as Chapter 6 in _The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal
Lindsey's "The Road to Holocaust"_ by Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart.  Steve
Schlissel is pastor of Messiah Christian Reformed Church in Brooklyn, NY.
and publishes "Messiah's Mandate", a free newsletter.  For more information
write:

                Messiah's Mandate
                2662 East 24th Street
                Brooklyn, NY  11235


Italics in the original appear as ALL CAPS.]

Greetings in our Messiah.  I must say when I was told that
reconstructionists are being accused of being anti-semitic, I was somewhat
taken aback.  Why would anyone, aware of the hopes, let alone the
principles, that guide and motivate reconstructionists regard them as
anti-semitic?

Perhaps it is because they have encountered certain reconstructionists who
are, in fact, anti-semitic.  Indeed, there are some who have written things
about the Jewish people, especially their history, which ought to be
regarded as stupid (at least), but even then not necessarily anti-Jewish.
In any event, it would be wrong to extrapolate from the one to the many.
That would be, of course, an example of prejudice and bigotry of which, I
am sure, most dispensationalists would not like to be guilty.

After all, having at one time been a missionary with one of the largest and
oldest dispensational Jewish mission organizations in the world, I have met
more than one dispensational anti-semite.  But I would not, therefore,
conclude that all dispensationalists and their system are anti-semitic.
That is clearly not the case.  It is the custom of Christian gentlemen to
judge by the best of a class, not the worst; to focus on principles in
controversy, not persons.

But that we may present a more positive case in the hope that we may put to
death the notion that reconstructionism is anti-semitic, consider me, if
you please.  I was born and raised a Jew in a city of 2,000,000 Jews.  I
was circumcised the eight day, attended Hebrew School, became Bar Mitzvah
at 13 years of age, went to shul (synagogue), attended Passover seders all
my life (still do each year, with my still unbelieving Jewish family), and
have the highest regard for Jewish culture and community.  I am, in a word,
a Jew!  (It may be of passing interest to you that one of my brothers
returned to Israel under the provisions of law there encouraging Jews to
return. He has been there more that ten years and, of course, has served in
the military.)

My Jewishness has never been an issue nor an obstacle in my fellowship with
Christian reconstructionists.  The opposite has been the case.  On the
other hand, my Jewishness was often seemingly the only thing that mattered
in fellowshipping with dispensationalists. On being introduced by
dispensationalists to others, it was almost invariably noted that I was
Jewish.  Not so with Reformed folk.

After my eyes were opened, by the grace of God, to the Messiahship of Jesus
our Lord, I attended militantly dispensational congregations.  I was
nurtured on books by Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost, Hal Lindsey - in
short, my fare was from the table prepared by the Moody-Dallas school of
theology.  It should be noted that I still admire my "instructors" for
their deep commitment to Christ, their sincere piety, and their diligent
efforts to glorify God.  While I no longer subscribe to their theology, I
never forget that I, too, was once an ardent dispensationalist.

Now, however, I am what you might call "a rock-ribbed Calvinist," one of
the variety which believes that COVENANT is the motif which alone
faithfully serves as an organizing principle of all Scriptural data;
Covenant as opposed to DISPENSATION.  I believe that the Law of God
continues in force as explained in the Westminster Confession of Faith,
that all areas of life are to be lived in joyful subjection to it and that
the world will one day recognize this, by the sovereign power of the Holy
Spirit of God (i.e. I am a Postmillennialist). Yet, no Christian who knows
me would for a moment entertain the suggestion that I am anti-semitic.

I am a minister in the Christian Reformed Church in North America.  In
addition to a Jewish pastor, our local church has another Jewish elder, and
more than one fourth of our membership is Jewish.

As a minister, I have had numerous opportunities to speak in Reformed and
Presbyterian churches not only in the Northeast, but also in the South,
Midwest, Southwest, and Canada.  In these churches I have presented what
seems to me to be the Biblical posture for the church to take towards the
Jewish people.  This position was summarized by a person dear to the heart
of every reconstructionist, John Calvin, in his _Institutes_ (IV, XVI, 14).

    (S)alvation depends on God's mercy, which He extends to whom He pleases
    [Romans 9:15-16]; ... there is no room for the Jews who preen
    themselves and boast in the name of the covenant unless they keep the
    law of the covenant, that is, obey the Word.

    Nevertheless, when Paul cast them down from the vain confidence in
    their kindred, he still saw, on the other hand, that the covenant which
    God had made once for all with the descendants of Abraham could in no
    way be made void. Consequently, in the eleventh chapter (of Romans) he
    argues that Abraham's physical progeny must not be deprived of their
    dignity.  By virtue of this, he teaches, the Jews are the first and
    natural heirs of the gospel, except to the extent that by their
    ungratefulness they were forsaken as unworthy - YET FORSAKEN IN SUCH A
    WAY THAT THE HEAVENLY BLESSING HAS NOT DEPARTED UTTERLY FROM THEIR
    NATION.  For this reason, despite their stubbornness and
    covenant-breaking, Paul still calls them [i.e. unbelieving Israel, SMS]
    holy [Rom. 11:16] ... . (D)espite the great obstinacy with which they
    continue to wage war against the gospel, we must not despise them,
    while we consider that, for the sake of the promise, GOD'S BLESSING
    STILL RESTS AMONG THEM. [emphasis added]

Those hearing the debate between postmillennial reconstructionists and
premillennial dispensationalists might be interested to know that the
existence of the State of Israel was a concern much discussed by
POSTMILLENNIALISTS before William Blackstone (author of the famous late
19th-century Christian Zionist tome _Jesus is Coming_) was old enough to be
bar mitzvah!

An article in the _British and Foreign Evangelical Review_ in 1857 asked
the question in its title: "Will the Jews, as a Nation, be Restored to
their own Land?"  This question was answered affirmatively; the (unsigned)
article concluded that Scripture taught that the Jews must be restored to
their land if certain prophecies would be fulfilled.  But contra
dispensationalism, the article asserted, "THE CONDITION OF THE RESTORATION
... IS REPENTANCE, TRUE RELIGION.  But it is agreed on all hands - with
exceptions that need not detain us - that the Jews, as a nation, WILL be
converted to Christianity, at some time yet future.  The condition THEN
will be complied with" (p. 818).

This excerpt highlights the difference between the attitude of the
reconstructionist and the dispensationalist towards the nation of Israel.
Dispensationalists believe that the Jewish people have a title to the land
that transcends virtually any other consideration including unbelief,
rebellion, and hatred towards Christ and His church.  Consequently,
anti-zionism is equated with anti-semitism.

The reconstructionist, on the other hand, makes a distinction.  He believes
that the Jewish people may exercise title only when they comply with the
condition of repentance and faith.  He has nothing against the Jews living
in "eretz yisrael" per se, but he recognizes that the far more significant
question is Israel's faith.  In light of this, it might be appropriate to
ask which theological system has the true and best interests of the Jew
close to its heart?  If one's heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel
agrees with the inspired Apostle's as recorded in Romans 10, can he thereby
be called anti-semitic?

It is of more than passing interest that the above-mentioned article refers
to the Jewish people as "a standing miracle, an ever-existing monument of
the truth of prophecy."  The author also maintained that, "the Jews, as a
nation, WILL be converted to Christianity. ... This is so clearly taught in
the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans that one could scarcely
deny it and retain his Christian character" (p. 812).  Yet, he felt
compelled to offer this disclaimer in a footnote: "It is proper for (the
author) to state emphatically that he has no sympathy whatever with any
Millenarian (i.e. Premillennial) theory, and that he considers all such
ideas, and especially such as involve the personal reign of our Savior
(from an earthly Jerusalem), as merely carnal and Judaizing."

As early as 1847 the great Dr. David Brown (of Jamieson, Faussett & Brown
fame) wrote of his conviction that the Jews would one day again possess the
Land of Israel.  But he labored carefully to emphasize the point that
whatever occupation of the land they may enjoy outside of Christ, that
would NOT be the fulfillment of the promised restoration. Dr. Brown, in his
mature years, wrote a most stimulating, and characteristically irenic book
on the subject.  Both dispensationalists AND reconstructionists would
profit from reading _The Restoration of the Jews: The History, Principles,
and Bearings of the Question_ (Edinburgh: Alexander, Strahan & Co., 1861)

Now, whatever any individual reconstructionist might say, either from
ignorance or honest disagreement, it can hardly be maintained that
reconstructionism itself is anti-semitic.  Calvin's position (as excerpted
above) is mine, and I am a "reconstructionist."  I can testify that while
not every reconstructionist would agree with my position, my views on this
issue are not only ACCEPTED within the reconstructionist world as being
perfectly consistent with the system, but sought out.

This being the case, I think it would be best to bury the charge of
anti-semitism in the sea of disapproved contentions.  If you should meet or
read a reconstructionist who is, in fact, anti-semitic, please put him in
touch with me.  And as for me, if I should meet a dispensationalist who
really believes that the church's efforts to reach the Jews with the Gospel
will be successful, I'll be sure to send him to you so that you can
convince him of the futility of his optimism!

It seems to me that this is what has occurred: Some dispensationalists have
accepted the unbelieving Jewish expectations of the Messianic Kingdom as
correct.  They have, thereby, taken sides with Rabbinical Judaism against
Christ's "Judaism," or Kingdom.  They then cite the existence of the State
of Israel as proof of their assertions, define themselves as the true
protectors of the Jews, and, with the arrogance that so often accompanies
such pragmatic paternalism, declare that all those who don't agree with
their theology are, in principle, anti-semitic.  Hogwash (i.e. non-kosher
argumentation).

I trust this letter has served to provoke more careful thinking about this
most important subject.  To be sure, the last word has not been said.  It
is my judgement that the interpretation of prophecy requires more patience
and care than most other areas of theology.  This being the case, we are
more faithful servants of Christ and the church when we allow latitude in
this area, all other areas being orthodox.  In this way, it may be that our
efforts may turn toward more productive cooperation in achieving what we
both desire: glory to God through the conversion of sinners, both Jewish
and Gentile.

"Magnify the Lord with me; let us exalt His name together." (Psalm 34:3)

----------------------------------------------------------------

--
Tom Albrecht