Before I begin, an important reminder: The First Fruits of Zion (and the larger Hebrew Roots Movement) is NOT a part of Messianic Judaism, the book discussed below claims to speak on behalf of that perspective, but the author and the organization he represents do NOT belong to it {"FFOZ does not represent the messianic Jewish movement", a quotation from an email I received from a Messianic Jewish Rabbi serving in leadership with the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues (IAMCS) He also wrote, "Messianic Jewish leaders universally reject One Law theology. FFOZ is not a messianic Jewish organization or ministry."}
One of the primary defenses of those leading and participating in Torah Clubs here in Venango County has been, "it's just a Bible study." As pastors, when attempting to do our duty before God of protecting the flock from dangerous theologies and attempts to divide our congregations and Christian community, it is important that we don't use hyperbole by claiming that bad ideas are heretical ones, or that things that we don't personally agree with are actually affronts to God. That sort of foolishness happens all too often, and people are rightly wary when a religious leader warns those in his/her charge to completely avoid an idea, organization, or movement. If you're familiar with my blog, you know how often I've warned against the all too common habit in America today of labeling those on the other side of an issue as evil or claiming their ideas would destroy the nation or Church. With that perspective in mind, and the, "Why are you calling a Bible study unorthodox?" question in firm view, continue reading.
When it comes to the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs), the evidence continues to mount that the warning from the Franklin Christian Ministerium was both warranted and on target {The Franklin Christian Miniserium's warning against the Torah Clubs and the First Fruits of Zion}. After learning about this book (I just came across it yesterday), the case has only grown that much stronger.
Should Christians really participate in a Bible study designed and created by an organization that believes that each of the churches that you belong to are founded on inherently anti-Semitic beliefs? If FFOZ doesn't actually believe such a loaded charge, and few accusations could be as damning if they were proved to be true, why would they publish a book built upon that premise?
The following quotations and commentary from Jacob Fronczak's book are pulled from the review of it by Rich Robinson as published in the journal Mishkan in 2021, you can read the full review here: Book Review of Fronczak, Why Messianic Judaism is Incompatible with the Five Foundations of Protestantism - by Rich Robinson {The quotations from Fronczak's book will appear in italics, the commentary from Robinson in bold, and my comments on both in ordinary text following them.}
In the preface to Rethinking the Five Solae, author Jacob Fronczak proffers the thesis that the five solae (or as more often anglicized, solas) of the Reformation are “themselves the root of Protestant anti-Semitism” (p. 2) and that “as they are normally understood, are designed to exclude Jews as much as Catholics from any definition of true and biblical religion” (ibid). These are serious charges, and so the book’s aim is “to re-examine the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective” (p. 3). Fronczak is himself non-Jewish, though moving in Messianic Jewish circles.
My comment: Is that not a serious charge! That the very foundations of Protestant thought are the cause of Protestant anti-Semitism! Let me be clear, the Church as a whole, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike, has a horrific and evil history of anti-Semitism, I will not minimize nor excuse an ounce of it, and have on numerous occasions called out and denounced its modern manifestations. Each and every cause of Christian anti-Semitism should be examined and reckoned with. But to say that the theology of the five solas are themselves the cause of the sinful anti-Semitism in Protestant history is to label the entire movement's premise as evil. Again, hard to say that the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) are just organizing and leading Bible studies meant to enhance the Church, when this is what they are willing to publish about Protestantism.
For those who need a refresher on the Five Solas (or Solae), here they are: sola scriptura (according to Scripture alone), sola fide (by faith alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), solus Christus (by Christ alone), and soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone).
So, what powerful evidence of inherent anti-Semitism does Fronczak follow-up his explosive claim with?
Unfortunately, what the author really ends up addressing is misunderstandings, or misuses, of the solas rather than the way they are understood and utilized by responsible interpreters.
My comment: If all you have are examples of the ideas of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the rest being twisted and used in ways they themselves would have rejected, it becomes rather ludicrous to say that their ideas are the problem.
"I aim to show here that when a proponent of sola scriptura studies the Bible, he is relying on something other than the inspired Word of God, whether he realizes it or not. Furthermore, I seek to show that those who malign the investigation and examination of traditional Jewish literature to illuminate the text of the Scripture are themselves ignorant of their own reliance on tradition and the usefulness of extra-biblical literature." (p. 8) In these examples I find the author to be tilting at windmills. Who denies that we should look to extra-biblical sources (Jewish, Greco-Roman, ancient Near Eastern) to arrive at an understanding of Scripture? Sola scriptura teaches that the Scripture is the final, not the only, authority. And who are these people who “malign” using Jewish sources? They are not scholars, and I’m not sure that I know of any pastors or lay people who would argue that way.
My comment: Tilting at windmills (nice literary reference there), indeed. It is a rare Protestant who thinks that a high view of the authority of Scripture negates the role of scholarship, archeology, history, and a host of other disciplines that help the Church fully understand what God was trying to say to his people when the Word was given to its original audience, and how that truth can in turn be applied in our world. Each an every week I lead two Bible studies where we go verse by verse through the Word of God. Those who have attended (and you can listen to the audio of them here: Bible Study Podcasts) will tell you that we spend an awful lot of time talking about historical context, cultural settings, textual and translational issues, and more, all in the pursuit of that very Protestant belief in sola scriptura. Like Rich Robinson, I am at a loss as to who Fronczak is thinking of when he claims that Protestants don't utilize but instead malign extra-biblical Jewish sources as potential insights into the text of Scripture.
Furthermore, Fronczak repeatedly insists that because the solas distinguished Protestantism from Catholicism, they were designed to draw circles and exclude others. Defining boundaries, however, is a part of life. If you are some things, then you are also not other things. This is just a statement of fact. It has precious little to do with denigrating Judaism or Catholicism or anything else.
My comment: From 1517 onward, it was pretty important to offer explanations of why Lutheranism differed with Catholicism, why the Reformed differed from Lutheranism and Catholicism, and for fun, why the Anabaptists disagreed with them all. Can you differentiate your belief system and or group from similar ones with malice? Absolutely, but that isn't inherent in the process, to claim that the five solae do this toward both Catholics and Jews could equally be said (and equally foolishly) of every effort that any movement in Church history has made to define itself.
In his conclusion, the author writes that, “In considering the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective, we have at times questioned their usefulness—at least as they seem to be understood by today’s evangelical Protestants” (p. 131). This however, is a far cry from showing that they are at the root of anti-Semitism (they aren’t) and far from showing that as properly understood, as opposed to popularly (mis)understood, they are not useful (they are).
My comment: Again, Fronczak uses a 'we' there that doesn't belong. He is himself a non-Jew, the organization he represents, and the movement that it belongs to, have been categorically rejected by the largest Messianic Jewish organizations. That they think they have become Jews, spiritually or otherwise, by following this theological path, is part of the reason why the Franklin Christian Ministerium has chosen to oppose them.
Robinson's review concludes that Fronczak has failed, entirely, to demonstrate at all his explosive premise.
"It is contradictory to claim to live a Jewish life in Messiah and at the same time deprecate Jewish tradition (sola scriptura), minimize the importance of good works (sola fide), claim that traditional Judaism is legalistic (sola gratia), distance oneself from organizational Messianic Judaism (solus Christus), and refrain from giving honor to those who have gone before one, those on whose shoulders we all stand (soli Deo gloria)." (p. 134) This is simply put, a raw caricature of what the solas stand for.
My comment: To destroy a strawman is not that difficult, but it doesn't help anyone, and it proves nothing. It is hardly worth explaining why each of Fronczak's charges against each sola is nonsense, it should be obvious to anyone who has studied Protestant theology. In brief only, then: (1) Sola scriptura puts tradition in a secondary place, it does not depreciate it or ignore it. (2) Sola fide is a summation of the NT's emphasis on faith, neither Paul nor any other NT author diminishes the need for confirming good works to follow it (see for example: Ephesians 2:8-10, where vs. 8-9 declare the supremacy of faith and grace, AND vs. 10 proclaims that God has good works set aside for each of us to do). (3) The theology of sola gratia does not call the Law of Moses legalistic in the way that Fronczak is using the word, but would indeed take issues with the same abuses of 2nd Temple Judaism that Jesus repeatedly crushed the Pharisees for upholding. (4) Solus Christus in no way is aimed at organizational Messianic Judaism, how could it be? For those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Christ alone makes all the sense in the world. (5) Lastly, Soli Deo Gloria directs all worship and honor to God, as it should be, it doesn't dishonor our ancestors in the faith. The author of Hebrews was more than capable of lauding the heroes of the faith who had gone before him without taking an ounce of God's ultimate glory, displayed in even the triumphs of those men and women, away from God.
When you set out to prove that the heart of Protestantism is inherently anti-Semitic, but only end up trashing Straw Men that we don't even believe, why would an organization publish and promote such a baseless attack?
In denigrating the five solas, he both fails to understand them and fails to allow Protestants to speak for themselves as to their meaning...I simply fail to grasp his rationale for choosing the solas as his whipping boy.
For the record, I am a Messianic Jew; I’ve been part of both messianic congregations and mainstream churches. I have studied at a Reformed seminary, I learned my basic New Testament as a young believer from a Catholic priest, and I have had many conversations at Hillel in college and over the years during my studies of Judaism and Jewish literature. I have no Protestant grist in my mill to grind about the solas.
My comment: Why do I see danger signs blaring loudly when I read material published by the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs)? If you are a pastor, and learn about a 'Bible study group' from an organization that believes these things about the Church, wouldn't you be?
The author Fronczak is not a Jew? Is this true?
ReplyDeleteYes, Jacob Fronczak in the book on page 60 writes, "it is quite another for a non-Jewish believer like myself to adopt a Jewish theology."
DeleteJust for anyone else who may stumble across this page and is alarmed to hear that FFOZ is "NOT a part of Messianic Judaism," you should know that FFOZ is publicly endorsed by the UMJC, which is the second-largest Messianic Jewish Union in the world. Here is the link to their page of publicly endorsed organizations:
Deletehttps://www.umjc.org/endorsed-organizations
I've just completed a six-part YouTube video fully rebutting this book, once the last videos is live next week, I'll collect them all together in one blog post. The series interacts with over 100 quotes from the book.
ReplyDeleteHere is the full-version of the rebuttal: https://pastorpowellsponderings.blogspot.com/2025/10/rethinking-five-solae-by-jacob-fronczak.html
ReplyDeleteOr maybe this would be a good place to post my thoughts for any others who might come here to make a judgment about the book.
ReplyDeleteI finished Fronczak’s book (sorry for the misspelling earlier on the other page!), and while there were some parts that I can understand would be offensive to those who might be dogmatic, I didn’t see anything that I would qualify as boldly heretical. With you having said that FFOZ “rejects the Five Solae,” I was expecting a full jettison of belief in Scriptural authority, a rejection of the essential role of faith in salvation, a denial of the absolute necessity of Christ for salvation, resistance to the utter need for grace through and through, and pushback against the ultimate reality that all is for the glory of God. I was surprised to have found each of these thoroughly affirmed, while also engaging respectfully in ways that addresses the context of the Reformation. Based off what else you’ve said about FFOZ, I was also surprised to see multiple validations of the Trinity and calls for continuing unity with believers from all “flavors,” Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike. I’ve never heard statements that ecumenical from other “cults!”
e.g.,
- While discussing how even in Protestant circles we have developed biblical ideas with the help of tradition, while specifically using the Trinity as an example, he states, “I am not saying that I do not believe in the Trinity” (p. 13).
- “As the Word made flesh, Yeshua spoke the very words of God. Truly hearing him in person would qualify as a direct revelation from God himself” (p. 33).
- The context of these statements makes quite clear that he is affirming the Trinity while pointing out that how the Councils articulated it is not spelled out in Scripture. When we understand the Trinity in the Councils' terms, we are relying on tradition rather than “Sola Scriptura.” (Which is fine, but not perhaps as necessary as many Protestants have made it.)
- While discussing community, and placing this in the context of the previous statement of Luther’s desire to reform the RC church rather than separate from it, he states, “This is certainly not to say that all Christians should join the Roman Catholic Church. However, it is to say that leaving an established denomination due to disagreement is not always the best option” (p. 40)
ReplyDelete- While discussing the tension that exists between MJ doctrine and greater Protestantism, he states, “It will not do to burn bridges with the institutional church, but neither will it do to compromise the essentially Jewish character of the movement” (p. 60).
- Caught in this tension, he states that he believes there are many like him who are “not willing to divorce the church but also unwilling to compromise on what we see as a fundamentally needed change in Christian soteriology” (p. 61). This “needed change” does not jettison faith, but rather draws on various Pauline scholarship that reexamines (from within Protestantism) what Paul might mean by “faith,” while also pointing out that “by faith alone” is not actually in the text as it relates to how we become justified.
- He goes on to state that if this recent scholarship is accurate, then the “Messianic Jewish Paul will be unique to Messianic Judaism,” while also not being “completely different from the Paul recognized by Protestants.” His desire to stay connected to Christianity is seen in the next sentence: “Keeping the lines of dialogue open will allow Messianic ideas to find an audience in the church, and it will keep Messianic Judaism from separating itself completely from Christian thought” (p. 80).
- Another heavy-hitter for his desire for unity, rather than “church hate”: “Perhaps then, through grace properly lived out, we will begin to see the fruits of reconciliation — both between believers of different theological persuasions and between Jews and Christians. For, in the end, the kingdom of heaven will demand reconciliation; although it encompasses distinction, it allows no division” (p. 97).
- Rather than viewing himself as not being in need of repentance or saving because of “works/self-righteousness,” he states on p. 79, that our position is one of tension “between our confidence in the atoning work of Jesus Christ and our own tenuous position as sinners continually in need of repentance.”
ReplyDelete- Regarding sola fide, here's the summary of his view near the end of the chapter: “On what basis does God justify the believer? By the person’s decision to follow Jesus? Or by a life lived in devotion to Jesus? Is justification forensic? Or a declaration that the believer is in fact truly righteous? The answer is that God’s decision to justify the believer is based on the total package. All is seen by Him at once” (p. 68). While this is more nuanced and different than the Protestant articulation of this doctrine, it seems a far cry from its utter abandonment, nor is it a promotion of salvation by works.
- On p. 83 he affirms our salvation by grace alone: “While Catholics and Protestants still deeply disagree over the nature of justification, the essential belief that the sinner is saved by God’s grace alone is shared by all.”
- He states on p. 87 that sola gratia in itself is not an unscriptural doctrine, while again, nuancing that what has been attached to the selection of that point as one of the Solae carries more than just what is taught in the Scriptures.
- He goes on to say that much of the Protestant shaping of sola gratia holds water only so long as Protestants are the only ones who believe that they’re saved by grace alone, which he displays is not true. Catholics and Jews also believe this. After that he says, “That is not to say that sola gratia is wrong, however. In fact, it may have the potential to be a great unifying factor in Judaism and Christianity” (p. 92).
- After speaking hypothetically (though I believe compellingly) about what “act” or “response” warrants or activates God’s saving us by grace, he states, “To these [various acts] as well, the gift of eternal life seems a disproportionate response. Hence, sola gratia — by grace alone we are saved” (p. 103). This is a far cry from an utter rejection of the Five Solae! And later, “Whether one believes that this grace is accessed through believing a doctrine, making a commitment to discipleship, saying a prayer, or participating in the sacraments, the ultimate legal basis for our salvation — Christ’s atoning work — is the same” (p. 104).
- “As for solus Christus, the simple idea that salvation is available only through the work of Christ is certainly a foundational doctrine for any believer, Jew or Gentile” (p. 121).
ReplyDelete- Likewise with sola Deo gloria. One would have to be overlooking regular qualifications of the author to walk away from this book and frame Fronczak as believing that salvation is somehow for the glory of somebody besides God: “Of all the Solae, [this one] is the most difficult to argue with. Who would steal God’s glory? Who would dare? Are there really Christians who believe that God is not ultimately deserving of all glory? If you have been following me closely, you might have already anticipated the answer: No, there are no Christians who believe that they or anyone else deserve a share of God’s glory” (p. 123). His beef with this point as it’s articulated is the not-unheard-of Protestant prohibition on upholding certain men and figures as righteous (i.e., godly).
- I suppose that it would be fair to say that Fronczak argues for an “abandonment of Protestantism,” but that’s not the same as abandoning faith in Christ or the authority of Scripture (and phrasing it like that is quite alarmist). He says, “While only a fool would deny that we have much to learn from the Reformers, it is equally foolish to embrace a supposedly Messianic Jewish theology that is really only Protestantism with a thin veneer of Jewish practice” (p. 134). But again, when remembering that Messianic Judaism is not Protestantism (or Evangelicalism for that matter), this is not a concern. They’re not trying to be Protestants. As a MJ organization, they indeed to “make sense” to Jews.
I’ve read elsewhere on your blog that your wife is a practicing Roman Catholic. As far as I know you understand her to be saved and a faithful disciple of Christ. I hear the author pushing against what has been an unfortunate, common experience during my 20 years in Protestant, Evangelical circles: the idea that salvation is found only in Protestantism, and a person who — even if they are displaying the fruit of the Spirit and believe that Christ alone saves them — assents to the kinds of damnable (as many Protestants would say) doctrinal beliefs of Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy, cannot be saved. It’s sad that the kind of thinking I saw Jacob deal with soberly and even-handedly is alive and well in Protestant circles. I don’t think that’s a straw-man at all. Significantly, this also moves the core of the issue from what I'm hearing is your claim (paraphrased: "They're abandoning the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity"), to a doctrinal difference within the house of Christianity (i.e., "we are Christians and hold to 'mere Christianity' while also seeking to bring reform to the church at large, viz. Protestantism). I imagine you have first-hand experience of this kind of difference in light of what I understand your wife's practice of faith to consist of.
With the exception of Jacob advocating for MJ congregations to abandon the Protestant polity model for the Orthodox Jewish model, I didn’t see any other place where there was a diminishing of the kinds of things we might call “mere Christianity.” Sure, there is pushback on Protestantism, balanced with regular affirmations of the good that has and does come from good Protestants, but I don’t think that’s anything to get particularly upset about if we concede that the Apostles were not Protestants, right?
ReplyDeleteThis blog post is about 1/10 of the issues that I have with Jacob's book. It took me about 6 hours on YouTube to go over them all. That you didn't see anything in the book that you would call "boldly heretical" is to me very surprising. I don't deny that Jacob has a tendency to pull back and offer the, "I'm not saying" statements that you've highlighted, that's a very common FFOZ methodology. They often make a mostly orthodox statement on one page before undermining it, or outright denying it, on the next. That was my conclusion having read Jacob's book. The ways in which he pulled back from the brink were overshadowed by the ways in which he was willing to write things that were untrue...Aaron Eby just put out an article on FFOZ's website that echoes this point. In it he threw under the bus followers of FFOZ who he claims go further than the leadership intends. I took issue with that effort because I can see (and have shown) the reasons why their followers keep on going toward abandoning belief in Jesus altogether. The One Law foundation overshadows all. You cannot operate under that premise without people taking it seriously in the end.
ReplyDeleteI stand by my assessment of Rethinking the Five Solae, especially his contention that these Protestant teachings are the cause of antisemitism.
I think even the fact that you call that a "methodology" rather than a communicative feature consistently employed to try and communicate clearly about complex topics where offense is likely to be taken says a lot about the narrative you have while interacting with their material. You are assuming that they are only putting those things there to obfuscate rather than try and speak clearly and balance what they're saying.
DeleteCase in point again regarding Aaron Eby's article. What if what he was trying to do was attempt to clarify where FFOZ as an organization stands in light of insistent, potentially misfounded criticism that their whole goal is to get Gentiles to start obeying the Law as if they were Jews? It seems like the kind of thing that a reasonable person would say if a critic were using those kinds of people as evidence to discredit their whole intention. Or, better yet, it seems like what I see you doing regularly on here (which again, I think is reasonable and right): trying to explain why unbiblical practices or errors keep showing up in the institution that is supposed to be those ideas/theology put into practice, for example Christian Nationalism. Simply because those two things have become unfortunately conflated in our country doesn't mean that Christianity is to blame for Christian Nationalism; and in the event that they are, it's right for Christians to speak of how Christianity is NOT that. That's exactly what I'm sure Aaron is intending there, and I even think your phrasing of "threw under the bus" is harsh and probably unfair. I'll have to go find it.
In light of not having enough time to watch the videos you put so much effort into, can you provide some of the quotes that you felt were especially "boldly heretical"?
Not a fan of the way Blogger groups comments; didn't see this one until later. What part of the mountain of "boldly heretical" ideas do you want to view? Here is the Word version (so, searchable) of my 10 part rebuttal of the HaYesod discipleship manual. There are many examples contained within it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_FWk_aM3j-XXDOOrGfbMrcBoD2ipFtbJ/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=116286635125543167832&rtpof=true&sd=true
DeleteWith respect to my wife, she is absolutely a genuine and inspiring disciple of Jesus Christ. While she and I disagree about various theological matters, her heart was always obviously committed to Jesus; faith motivated her when we met and faith guides her to this day...The sad irony of my work exposing FFOZ is that it comes after two decades of ecumenical ministry both her in PA and at my first church in MI. I have been on the forefront in my community of ecumenical worship, dialogue, and mission. That is the heart of what I love and am willing to work toward...Which is why I was so shocked to find this organization operating in our community under the umbrella of being, "just a bible study." For those who don't accept the faith of others with whom they disagree as genuine, all disagreements are heresy. I have a much higher standard, and a much deeper willingness to see God's grace at work in many other places where Jesus is still Lord and Savior. But I draw the line at the JW and LDS (both having a much different Jesus), and I draw the line at religious expressions that don't have faith in Jesus (i.e. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.). When I came across FFOZ in the Fall of 2022 my first question was: what is this?
ReplyDeleteAfter much study it became evident to me, and to every pastor in my ministerium, that this wasn't just another flavor of Christianity, it was something else, something dangerous. It would have stopped with a public rebuke of this organization in our own community if people from around the country didn't start reaching out to me for help soon after my short YouTube video explaining our letter was published.
And so here we are. When I read Jacob's book I see something outside of the breadth and depth of what the Church is both in our world today, historically, and biblically. My conscience and my oath to protect God's people compel me to take action.
I appreciate your respectful dialogue (assuming all of the anonymous posts on the blog of late have been from the same person). I also appreciate your willingness to see others in a better light than someone (myself in this case) may be encouraging you to; that is a noble quality.
ReplyDeleteI'm also really appreciating this, brother. It's unfortunate that we are having a harder and harder time dialoguing about important matters in our country as well as in the Church. Unfortunately, though, we have some bloody strands of error in our Protestant genes when it comes to seeing doctrine in different lights, and I think that continues to leech into what has become a widespread inability to unite over the things that are essential.
DeleteI agree with you. There are clear lines that Scripture gives, and I would agree with those you've given here. I have no doubt that you and your wife are devoted disciples of Christ, consumed to see His Kingdom established here on earth as it is in heaven. May God bless your efforts that are built on the Foundation.
I would answer simply to this by saying that all of that makes sense, and FFOZ should be "called out," assuming that what you've come to understand about FFOZ is accurate. In the event that it isn't correct, then you are in fact doing the thing you believe you aren't: turning a disagreement into a heresy. I am not seeing the same things as you are in the FFOZ material that I'm interacting with. The temptation on your end may be to say that that's because I'm not as insightful, well-read, or experienced as you are (none of which you know, so it would be dangerous to go to that conclusion), but I think that the right way forward would be to acknowledge that you might be wrong about them (and I might be, too!). From where I'm sitting, though, I'm seeing balance, nuance, biblical fidelity, and pushback on things that are "pushbackable" from this book (yes, even with the use of "my translations" which is not at all controversial in academic circles/writings). I'm not seeing Jesus's position as Son of God called into question, or, again, any of the other foundational, biblically-based theological items that the Five Solae were meant to correct being opposed.
In my eyes, what you are doing with FFOZ is the same as someone saying that you're outside of the "In" box simply because you don't disavow Roman Catholic theology wholesale, or in terms that those critics say you must. The reality is that MJ accepts FFOZ as part of itself (or at least the UMJC and MJAA/IAMCS, the two largest orgs). Sure, there will be fringe groups and individuals who will disagree, but that's just life. Christ Himself experienced this. God help us if we're found opposing something that He is seeking to do. Communicating is incredibly difficult, and the problem is only compounded when someone has made up their mind about a thing or is totally closed to seeing things another way (as I have unfortunately seen you do when "supporters" of FFOZ try to tell you that you're getting it wrong, or even when FFOZ publishes things that say you're misunderstanding).
Given that I have no idea who you are, what your qualifications may be, or how much familiarity you have with FFOZ's materials, I won't hazard to guess why you think what they are doing is, "balance, nuance, and biblical fidelity."
DeleteIn the end, I hold teaching ministries to a higher standard. Those who would presume to teach will be judged more strictly, myself included. There is a difference between that which is spoken off the cuff, and that which is published for profit, especially if those same ideas are repeated over time in multiple publications.
I am willing to take FFOZ at their word, their written word. The denials on podcasts don't have much weight when the issues are hand are not addressed.
I have no idea what your stake is in this, why you want me to stop talking about FFOZ, or retract what I've said. I do know why those who contact me weekly who have been hurt by this ministry want me to keep shining this light on what is happening. I've heard their stories, most of which I cannot publicly talk about, and new ones keep coming. I've spoken to the pastors who feel overwhelmed by the division and hostility that has hit them from seemingly nowhere because someone in their church has joined a Torah Club. These things I know.
When I combine them with every instinct, years of research, and a lifetime of ministry, all of which tell me that this danger is real and not imagined, and that someone needs to speak up {God has many workers, he has plenty of others who could do it if I did not}.
I could provide each of those for you, but I think they're irrelevant. I will tell you that I've read all of your blog posts regarding FFOZ, but have avoided your videos. You don't seem at peace in your videos. They're hard for me to watch. It's enough to engage with the ideas and facts in and of themselves.
ReplyDeleteI see your heart behind this, truly I do, and I think that the Lord sees it as a beautiful thing. You care deeply about your sheep, take God as a judge seriously, and want to do your best to keep people from error that may damn them. Those are all things I take seriously as well. What I want to keep laying before you is that I truly believe you are missing what they're trying to say because your judgment or insight is clouded by something. You've shared about how this is personal for you, and I don't want to presume, but I can imagine that any kind of separation in a church context is painful. It seems like a lot of your work regarding FFOZ stems from that. It feels personal for you, and I know you've admitted that it is, but it would be silly not to admit how things that are personal diminish the likelihood of our judgment being objective.
Honestly, I'm engaging with you here because I also have heard stories from others who have been kicked out of churches or have had friends cut them off over their refusal to denounce FFOZ. Now, these friends are happy to state what they disagree with FFOZ over; they're not sold out die-hards. But these believing, Christ-loving brothers and sisters have been treated in ungodly ways over things that neither they nor FFOZ believe. And what is the source of the separation? It's this blog. It's a pastor who hears about a Torah Club and instead of joining it himself or buying a couple books from FFOZ, he does what many of us do in the 21st-century. He googles FFOZ. He asks the internet if they're safe or not. And he comes here. And instead of reading Fronzcak's book (with what I would call many attempts to balance and clarify his position), listening to an hour-long podcast where he can interact with the primary people behind the movement he reads this review and says, "I can't believe my sweet little congregant Mary is caught up in this. I need to warn her to jettison all of this!" Now Mary might have actually read a lot of the books for herself and is able to say whether the kinds of things Pastor are saying about them are true. But when she says, "Pastor, I don't see them saying that," Pastor has to make a decision: does he admit that he hasn't really made an informed judgment about this and has only read things others have said about them, or does he buckle down for the sake of guarding sweet Mary's soul and shielding the rest of the flock from this dangerous, Trinity-denying, Torah-worshiping cult? Most are going to do the latter. Those are the stories I've heard. Families who love the Church, love Christians, (count themselves as Christians), and have poured decades into ministering to the Bride and the Lost, and they get kicked out because they're not willing to agree with Pastor who knows that FFOZ is a dangerous cult because he read (or watched) somebody's enormous cache of damning evidence about them. That is wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd in light of much of your damning evidence being anecdotal/speculative (e.g., "it seems like they deny the Trinity" rather than having a quote from them that says, "We deny the Trinity," again, as you would find in LDS or JW), you are committing slander in the event that you're wrong. Which I, like others have before, am suggesting. Not all of what you're saying is wrong. I wouldn't want you to retract everything you've said, because you're right about some of it. FFOZ does not think that the Law is fulfilled (i.e., abrogated) because of the New Covenant. They don't think we're living in the fullness of the New Covenant (but it also wouldn't be fair to say that they don't believe the New Covenant has started). We could go on and on. But I would want you to stop filling in the blanks and telling those reading your reviews how they're supposed to understand what they're reading. What they definitely don't believe is that all Gentiles are supposed to be obeying all of the Law. They don't believe that Christians who start to engage with or even believe their materials should be leaving their churches. They don't think they alone have discovered the true gospel. They don't think that nobody was saved the last 2,000 years because they didn't have what they now possess. Those are just some of the claims I've heard you make or imply by interacting with your materials. And that has led to the very thing you're fighting against. I pray that upon hearing that your heart is heavy and burdened and you start posting more charitably and precisely if you continue writing about FFOZ.
Thanks for linking the Google Doc of your review of Hayesod. I read through the first two lessons, and would say, again, you are taking things you don't like/that sound "wrong" and extrapolating more than is communicated by them. Personally, it would be best practice for me (and what I would want others to do to me if I were in that situation) to ask questions to try and be sure I understand where they're coming from and what they're thinking before stating "This is what they're thinking/trying to do/how they're connecting Moses with merit, grace, etc." I'll try and work my way through it, but so far it's much of the same as is on your other posts.
ReplyDeleteAt a certain point, the cumulative evidence has to matter. When you've read the same ideas over and over in texts spanning more than two decades of publishing, it is time to take a person or organization at its word.
ReplyDeleteYou are free to conclude that the teachings put forth by FFOZ don't have the implications that I see in them, that it won't pull people from church fellowship, or result in a "different gospel," but that's just not what the plain words on the pages are saying to me. I have to answer to God for what I do with the task laid before me.
Is it personal? Yes. I've explained why. Is it emotionally clouding my judgment? I don't see that. To protect myself I continue to engage with other pastors on this issue, to collect their feedback and see if they see what I see. I am the public face of this (currently) but by no means am I alone.
If you wish to discuss the impact of this blog on individuals and pastors we should do so in-person rather than via anonymous posts. If a pastor needs further guidance or has additional questions, he/she is welcome to reach out to me for more information, a number of them have.
When I first starting researching FFOZ there were zero Google results that offered any perspective beyond their own. Where else could anyone turn than to things published by FFOZ to evaluate FFOZ? I would imagine that by now those who have a feeling that something is amiss in what they are seeing in FFOZ do check out my blog or YouTube channel, if they do they see primary source quote after quote. If they don't agree with my conclusions they have the evidence before their eyes to form their own conclusions.
Am I at peace in my videos? By that do you mean, does this issue rouse my emotions? Of course it does. I can also be fired-up when preaching on Sunday or teaching about any number of topics. That's my personality, I'm not dispassionate about the things that matter to me, whether those things bring me joy or sorrow, hope or concern. I wear my heart on my sleave, a trait inherited from my mother (a gift from her). If you've skipped the videos you've missed-out on much of the evidence of the past year, but then again, if you think my HaYesod analysis is to harsh you'd likely reach the same conclusions about The Beginning of Wisdom or other series I've responded to.
Please know that I have heard your concerns, the length of my engagement with you here should demonstrate that.
Honestly, I would be overjoyed if when looking at FFOZ I only saw a difference of opinion, just another expression of the Body of Christ among the many varieties in our world today bringing glory to God. If that was all that my heart and mind saw here, I'd have gone on to do other things and not given them a 2nd thought. I can't unsee what I have seen, I can't close my heart to what is happening here.
We have two threads going on two different posts, so that isn't ideal, but this thought deserves to be heard in all of this as well...
ReplyDeleteTo an extent, and it is a significant one given the stakes at hand and the importance of the issues being discussed, it doesn't matter if FFOZ's leaders believe x, y, or x, or if people are going further than what they want them to {Those are key questions but ultimately unknowable, an issue of the heart that I can't judge, nor can you.}, because these dangerous ideas are being taught in the materials they are writing, publishing, and selling.
You think my conclusions go too far, that much is clear, but they are not invented out of whole cloth; the textual basis is right there on the page. My work is 100% primary source, real quotes from real publications.
Which means that, even if FFOZ doesn't intend it, and even if FFOZ doesn't want them to, as a teaching ministry that have the responsibility of not putting these ideas out there to begin with. As I've said, it isn't about discussion unorthodox ideas, that's simply education, it is about endorsing them (or stating them without caveats or warnings, in most cases the endorsement is clear and obvious).
If the materials themselves are not dangerous, then that's on me for thinking they are {I'm hardly alone in that assessment, so it would be on all of us}, but to the extent that they are dangerous, false, misleading, or anything similar, those being recruited to join a Torah Club and the pastors responding to questions about Torah Clubs deserve to know what is in the materials. You can't expect the average person to do weeks worth of research before accepting or rejecting an invitation to join a TC, and you can't expect pastors to be up-to-speed on every potential bible study out there that folks might ask them about.
I think the illustration about the Bible is spot on here. With your line of reasoning, we should start censoring the Bible, as it is unarguably the root of what has led Christians to do awful things in the name of God centuries. After all, it's ultimately responsible for the messes created since the ideas can be supported via "primary sources." I'm sure another helpful illustration will come to mind in time, but just because you're only using primary sources does not mean that your presentation or understanding is balanced, accurate, or fair. That's what I'm saying. For the sake of your position, though, brother, I would just remind you that you are impacting the measure with which God will enter into judgment with you based off the way you are judging FFOZ. I, as another person engaging with you (maybe you could even call me a pastor?), am trying to be another voice dialoguing with you, saying that I think you're off here. It seems that you are using like-minded individuals (rather than solid biblical citations or balanced use of their quotations) to affirm to yourself that you're totally right and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong. I'm just urging you to realize that this is not as cut and dry as it is in your own eyes, and that you crusading about this is leading to the very things you've stated are why you're speaking out.
ReplyDeleteYou are anonymous, so I have no idea what I should call you, what responsibility you bear...I do know Professor Solberg, I know his decades of scholarship in the field of HRM (including books authored on the subject). His assessment is the same as mine, we both see the same errors and the same dangers: https://youtu.be/UP9S7j9GGig?si=vfLHCH_ePyHwdUhQ
DeleteI can reference any number of posts or sources to support any number of claims. I'm asking you to engage with the points I'm laying before you. I'm disappointed that you are largely just pointing me to others who are saying the same things you are rather than engaging with new information I'm placing before you or questions I'm asking. Your logic cannot be consistently applied to other situations where the source is saying one thing but the outcome is dangerous (as in the example I've provided with the Bible and any number of heinous, ungodly acts of extremism, murder, etc.). I will continue praying for you and hope to be able to hear your response to these points in the future. God bless you, brother.
Delete