The harms that "Heritage America" will do to the Church, our Gospel witness, and our republic.

American Progress (1872) by John Gast

Heritage America: Wise Men Have Left Us an Inheritance Ben R. Crenshaw, August 23, 2024 at Americanreformer.org

Ben R. Crenshaw is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Declaration of Independence Center at the University of Mississippi. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Politics at the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College.

I came across this article by Ben Crenshaw posted at Americanreformer.org while reading an article about the effort (unserious as it may be) of some complementarian pastors to revoke the 19th Amendment because they believe that women are too empathetic to be trusted with the right to vote.  Needless to say, I reject that sexist view as utter nonsense {The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism or The deplorable shame of using Potiphar's Wife to discount sex abuse victims: A refutation of Pastor Doug Wilson}as have other Christian thinkers {The American Crisis of Selective Empathy And how it reaches into the church. David French}.  While thinking about how foolish some pastors willing to rail against women voters have become in mixing their politics and adherence to the Culture War with their responsibility before God to preach the Gospel, I decided to click on the link in the article about a term that I've seen thrown around of late: Heritage Americans.

I would imagine that some who use the term "Heritage Americans" are full-on "blood and soil" racists no different than yesterday's Klan members, and some others may use it out of a love for American culture and history without any racial overtones or designs on wielding power over others, Crenshaw's article leans toward the former, even though he denies that it is so.  In the end, this entire concept of "real Americans" is dangerous to the Church, our Gospel witness, and ultimately our Republic.  Let's look at some quotes of particular concern:

"Not all people merely by virtue of being human are capable of self-government. In fact, self-government is rare in human history, as most people are too poor, slavish, stupid, or vicious to establish good government and run it well. They are instead better fit to be ruled without, and even against, their consent." 

This line of thinking is the same sort of racism that was rampant during the era of Colonialism.  Crenshaw seems to think that Englishmen (and those like them) are the only ones capable of good government and self-rule {He says as much in the article), the world's other "inferior" people are best ruled against their consent.  His views are ugly, immoral, and entirely ahistorical.  In other words, this should be condemned plainly and as often as necessary to get the point across.

This racial viewpoint offered by Crenshaw is also poison to the Gospel.  God didn't create tiers of people, some inherently different than others, to suggest otherwise is to malign the goodness of God or to call into question his ability as Creator.  If that were not bad enough, this view would also taint evangelism because how could one expect a people who are too "slavish" and "stupid" to govern themselves to be able to understand / accept the Gospel, and even if they do, how could such lesser people make good disciples?  This whole pit of racism is revolting, it has nothing to do with a theology actually derived from scripture.

"Heritage America is unique in that it is not merely a Christian people seeking to govern themselves well, but to order themselves under intentional Christian government and civil law. To be a Heritage American, then, is to accept this form of religious polity and be willing to submit to laws and institutions that are explicitly Christian in their origin, nature, and purposes."

The problem with this is, as it is with all 'Christian' Nationalism, a question of who gets to decide which civil laws are "Christian" and which are not.  What Crenshaw wants to do is blur the line between theology and politics so thoroughly that all civil lawmaking becomes a theological exercise.  As we will see later, he also wants to limit that exercise to Protestant Christians with little regard for our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ, let alone any regard to those who are not followers of Jesus.

In addition to the problem one can see with a legal code that is supposedly endorsed by Christianity with respect to who makes that definition and who it leaves out in the cold, we also have the little problem of Church History.  We have tried this game before, and it did not end well, at all, for the Church.  From the time of Constantine until the rise of modern nation-states, the Church was intertwined with the power of various kingdoms and empires.  This embrace of power over others rather than Jesus' power under others via a servanthood model {See my 6 hour seminar for a very deep dive: The Church and Politics} redefines Christian discipleship as a matter not of serving others and showing them the value of the Gospel, but instead one of compelling by force and punishing those who do not accept the Gospel.  In the past this resulted in the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition and the burning of heretics at the stake.  Needless to say, as a Baptist who believes in the freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and who considers Rogers Williams to be a hero worth emulating, this lust for power on the part of those who think they are helping the Church is terrifying.

"As already mentioned, the Americans were overwhelmingly Christian, and so religious liberty and tolerance was more specifically Christian liberty and Christian tolerance. That tolerance was intolerant toward many world religions and religious practices judged to be harmful to soul and body; instead, toleration was primarily extended toward overcoming denominational differences among Protestants."

Tellingly, Crenshaw admits that the Heritage Americans he so much admires and wants to give power to failed to give liberty or freedom to anyone that didn't fit within their own definition of being "one of us."  Honestly, he's giving them too much credit.  There was a reason why Roger Williams was forced to flee Massachusetts Bay Colony and found Rhode Island, the Puritans with power in the colony abused it just as any student of human nature could have predicted. 

"Heritage Americans must love liberty in its fullest sense—freedom from external tyranny and internal despotism—and seek spiritual freedom in community with family, friends, and neighbors. Heritage America embraces religious liberty and tolerance toward Christian differences, and might even tolerate Christian-adjacent religions if its adherents agree to live according to Christian civil laws, norms, and cultural expectations."

We have seen this fail miserably in John Calvin's Geneva, in the slaughter of the Thirty Years War, and in the rise of antisemitism that ran parallel to the launch of the Crusades.  It doesn't work.  Freedom for us, but not for you if you disagree, is a recipe for disaster.  It will result in oppression, violence, and evil done in the name of defending Christ and the Church.  The thing is, never once did Jesus Christ ask his disciples to force anyone to follow him.  Never once did Jesus tell his disciples to seize civil power and enforce "laws, norms, and cultural expectations."  This quest for power is popular among today's 'Christian' Nationalists, like Crenshaw, but it is foreign to the work and words of Jesus in the Gospels, and it has harmed the Church each and every time it has been tried.

"These traits are what constitute Heritage America. You might formally be an American citizen by birth or naturalization, but unless you understand these deeply-rooted and traditional aspects of American identity, you cannot be a Heritage American—a true American. Nor is it the case that one can merely pay lip service to these ideals. Instead, what is outlined above is a description of a tangible way of life. Because Heritage America is a habit of living, those outside the tradition can be grafted in. The concept of engrafting—of adopting and integrating into the trunk of a tree branches that are foreign to it such that what was once separate becomes one—is the best way to think about becoming a Heritage American if you are not one currently. It is a particular way of life that is proud and exclusive, but it is welcoming to those who want to live in this manner"

And here is where Crenshaw's racism moves beyond harming the Church and our Gospel witness to threatening the future of the Republic.  The moment we allow there to be an ideological test for "true Americans" we've lost.  If one must pass a test of beliefs in order to be considered a "real" American, the 1st Amendment is a joke.  This trend toward those in the Blue and Red partisan camps viewing each other as un-American (or even, as "enemies of the state") has already caused violence and a dramatic erosion of kindness and decency in our politics.  Rather than seeking to heal this partisan divide, Crenshaw and the concept of "Heritage Americans" would purposefully rupture it further.

"Can you be a Heritage American if you’re not a Christian? What if you are a Jew, a Muslim, or an atheist? Ideally, of course, all Americans would be Christians, whether sincerely or nominally. However, a polity of pure saints is not practical or likely, and so toleration of those who dissent is necessary. There is a balance that must be struck on this point. Non-Christians can be tolerated, as long as they acquiesce to living in an unashamedly Christian America (i.e., submitting to Christian civil law, government support for Christianity, Christian moral, civil, and religious norms and customs, etc.). At the same time, both public and private citizens should be concerned to help the Christian Church flourish in our nation, since a collapse of Christian conversions, church plants, and influence will mark the end of America. Toleration of non-conformists thus presupposes cultural and religious dominance of some sort. This dominant culture ought to be Christian culture."

The end of the second sentence tells you everything you need to know about why this is absolute madness for Christianity and the Church: "whether sincerely or nominally." That is exactly what doomed the expressions of Christianity in Europe prior to WWII.  Everyone was "nominally" a Christian, but many were just paying lip service to that faith, or were counted as being a part of the Church with zero evidence that they even wanted to be.  This Cheap Grace horrified Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to have faith in Jesus Christ reduced to something that one could simply claim with zero discipleship simply because a person was meeting "cultural expectations" is a slap in the face of the Gospel.  The truth is, I don't want nominal Christians in my Church, and nor should any pastor worth his/her salt.  We need committed Christians, we need men and women willing to embrace self-sacrifice and service for the sake of others, we need people willing to pray for their enemies, and willing to turn the other cheek.  'Christian' Nationalists will eventually say the quite part out loud if you give them a chance.  Here Crenshaw has admitted that "nominal" Christians (i.e. ones without real saving faith) are good enough to be Heritage Americans, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has a much higher bar for inclusion: real genuine life-altering, Fruit of the Spirit producing, faith.

By the way, I don't want government support for Christianity.  That support is a Faustian Bargain, the costs are in the fine print.  Far better to have a government that is neutral, that protects the rights of all, and allows the Gospel to compete in the marketplace of ideas.  On a level playing field, the Gospel has nothing to worry about.

In the end, an article such as this one will garner enthusiastic cheers from those whose primary concern is earthly power for people who look, act, and think just like "us."  It should also make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up if you happen to look, act, or think outside of the mythical Heritage American mold.  The concept of Heritage Americans could be rejected solely on the basis of how it dismisses the slaughter of Native Americans, enslavement of Blacks, and contributions to American history of those who weren't White or didn't speak English.  On that basis alone this idea ought to be soundly rejected as an ugly relic of the racism of the past.  However, the way in which Crenshaw, and many others like him, present this as a boon to Christianity and the Church only enhances the danger that these ideas pose.  Make no mistake about it, there is no room at the Cross of Jesus Christ for racists, and no need for the Gospel to wield power over others.

For further reading, see also:

The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory, by Tim Alberta: A book review

Why plans to build a "Christian" Nationalist Retreat Center in Franklin, PA is not a good idea for the local churches or our town.

Jesus and John Wayne: A few responses to a thought provoking book

The Watchman Decree: 'Christian' Nationalism's 'name it and claim it' dangerous prayer

The posts in my ongoing "Scripture refutes Christian Nationalism" series

Sermon Video: All Kinds of Prayers- Ephesians 6:18-23

To close his letter to the church at Ephesus, the Apostle Paul encourages them to bring, "all kinds of prayers and requests" to God.  With that in mind, as followers of Jesus we have a host of things to pray about and for in our conversations with God.  These include those who share the Gospel (i.e. pastors, missionaries, evangelists, apologists) as well as the concerns that are near and dear to our hearts, including our family and ourselves.

In the end, pray and keep on praying.

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #48: Using Midrash to limit Jesus and bash the Church, plus hypocrisy about taking scripture "literally."

 

One of the challenges in responding to the massive amount of output coming from FFOZ is to not become numb to seeing the same tactics used and claims made over and over again.  At a certain point, it becomes repetitive as I read another time where they are placing limits on the person and work of Jesus or bashing the Church, "If I've seen it once, I've seen it a thousand times."  That numbness can't happen.  These teachings are not normal, and they need to be called out again and again, as the TV sitcom character Clair Huxtable would say, "Let the record show..."

Lesson 48, page 12

"If one were allowed to suggest such a thing, it almost seems as if the limitations on multiplying horses, wives, and wealth entered the Torah in reaction to the excesses of King Solomon's kingdom."

As an organization that teaches that Torah is eternal, going so far as to say that it existed before Creation, and can never and will never change in the least way, it shocked me (yes, that's somehow still possible) to hear Lancaster muse about the idea that the Torah was edited in Solomon's day to include commandments that would retro-actively make Solomon's sins a violation of the Law.  The idea of the Torah being edited as late as the post-Exile period is common in some academic circles, but typically rejected outright by most Evangelicals.  Needless to say, Torah can't be an eternal reflection of the "lifestyle of the redeemed community" {A phrase FFOZ uses in many publications} if parts of it were situationally added as time went on.  

Lesson 48, page 14

"The obligation of writing a copy of the Torah for himself reminded the king that he is not above God's law - even if He is the Messiah (Matthew 5:17-19)."

"Group Discussion: Read Matthew 5:17-19 and discuss the problem with the common assumption that Yeshua was exempt from literal compliance to the authority of the Torah."

FFOZ likes to use loaded phrases, "above God's law" is one of them.  Jesus was, and is, the Word of God.  Jesus is God.  He cannot be under the Law's authority as if he were an ordinary king.  Jesus is the heir of David, to be sure, but he is also the Son of God.  In their effort to elevate Torah (a form of idolatry) they proclaim that even Jesus' authority must be placed beneath Torah such that he can only point backward to Torah, only be a reformer, never a new law giver.  To them, Moses is the lawgiver, Jesus is not.  Jesus submitted to the Law, just as he submitted to the will of the Father, not because of ontological inferiority, but because of his great love for humanity.  However, in the end, the Son of God is not a hired hand, he is the heir, and the Law serves his purpose, not the other way around.

The Group Discussion question likewise contains the loaded term, "literal."  Yes, it does bother me as a former English teacher to see how often Lancaster chooses to wield "literal" like the term itself contains power to silence FFOZ's critics.  I saw this same fixation on the term literal with Fundamentalists in my youth, they were misguided in doing so like Lancaster.  

It is not, by the way, a teaching common to any portion of the Church that Jesus did not fulfill the Law by fully keeping it.  Notice that the term chosen is the "authority" of the Torah.  It isn't about Jesus willingly obeying the Law fully in order to be the perfect sacrifice, they need Jesus to submit to its authority, to not teach by his own authority.  The Gospels paint a much different picture, remarking again and again that Jesus' ministry and mission was by his own authority {Mt. 7:9, 9:6, 28:18, Mk. 1:22, 2:10, Lk. 4:32, 5:24}.

Lesson 48, page 14b

"The Midrash Rabbah transmits a legend about King Solomon that seems to be the source behind the above teaching from Matthew 5."

This theory isn't proven in any way, just asserted.  Of course, we have no idea if Jesus was responding to the content of Midrash Rabbah, given that it only existed in oral form during his lifetime and did not reach its current iteration as a written text for at least four hundred years after.  What, then, the rabbinic teaching on this text looked like in Jesus' day is unprovable.  If, however, we assume that Jesus was aware of the legend (in some form), it still would only be one among many possible contextual ideas he may be addressing, AND it is a legend not part of the scriptural story, so there is zero evidence that Jesus in any way approved of the way in which this particular midrash handles the story of Solomon.  Maybe Midrash Rabbah is wrong about Solomon's thought processes.  Remember that rabbinic commentary is not inspired scripture..  Last, but not least, Jesus is not a rabbi like his contemporaries, he does not rely upon the authority of others to bolster his teachings, he is his own authority.  Thus, to look at anything Jesus taught and seek its "source" from human authors is going to be a stretch, at best, and a dangerous game, at worst.

Lesson 48, page 15

"Solomon felt that he understood the spiritual intention behind the letter of the law against multiplying wives.  He thus reasoned, 'If I keep my heart from going astray, then I am free to multiply wives.'  He also felt at liberty to edit the text of the Torah to reflect his new insight.  He felt that because he understood the principle of the law, he did not need to obey the literal meaning."

According to the Midrash Rabbah, as usual, FFOZ treats rabbinic sources as if they are fully true and applicable to scripture.  This may be a legitimate insight into why Solomon sinned, then again it may not.  It reflects the opinion of one human author, not divine revelation.  Scripture does not offer any evidence that Solomon felt he had the authority to edit the Torah, nor that he sinned because he was trying to keep the "spirit of the Law" rather than its "literal meaning."  This view fits with FFOZ's legalism, nothing more.

Lesson 48, page 16

Group Discussion: Make the relationship between the midrash and Matthew 5:17-19 explicit.

Lest anyone think that the Midrash is just a tool to provide background information, the Torah Club group discussion will make the "relationship," remember that none has been proven only claimed, "explicit."  Again, I have zero issue with studying rabbinic sources to learn more about the background, but using them as the lens through which the text of scripture must be viewed is deeply problematic.  This is true of even the OT passages, but grows even more tenuous in the NT.  Why?  Remember, these sources were not codified (written down) until centuries after the time of Christ.  They are influenced by a reaction against the claims about Jesus made by his followers.  It will always be anachronistic to connect them directly to Jesus' teachings, and at times will be promoting a viewpoint he would not have endorsed.

Lesson 48, page 17

"What Solomon meant by these words is this: 'Because I tried to be wiser than the Torah and persuaded myself that I knew the intention of the Torah, did this understanding and knowledge turn out to be madness and folly.' (Exodus Rabbah 6:1)"

"Through reinterpretation and rationalization, he ignored the literal meaning of God's commandments.  In so doing, his wisdom turned to madness and folly with bitter consequences for his life."

FFOZ's current (4th version, so who knows if it will be the last) teaching about Gentiles and the Torah is that we are only obligated to keep the portions that apply to "sojourners" in the commonwealth of Israel, Gentiles do not need to keep the identity markers that God gave to Abraham's descendants at Sinai, but is it any wonder that those following them on this pro-Torah path naturally end up adopting those observances, even converting to Judaism and leaving Jesus behind?  The focus is nearly entirely on pointing back to Torah as the key to living well, the Fruit of the Spirit are rarely mentioned, so people in Torah Clubs hear this loud and clear and respond accordingly.

Lesson 48, page 17b

"Solomon's folly is still with us today.  It's easy to rationalize away the literal meaning of God's commandments.  It happens ever time the Torah is read from the perspective of replacement theology.  The ceremonial commandments are explained away as allegorical, symbolic, spiritual, or just plain obsolete."

"Likewise, the interpretation of replacement theology effectively move boundaries established by God.  Replacement theology eliminates the boundary between Israel and the nations, thereby neutralizing Jewish identity and the covenant.  It redefines the boundaries of Scripture by declaring the Torah to be canceled by grace.  It eliminates the boundaries between clean and unclean and the boundaries between holy and profane."

So, Midrash Rabbah proves that followers of Jesus who don't live Torah observant lives are sinful fools.  Got it, actually they'll say something much stronger than that on the next page.  As a general rule, it is not "rationalizing away" one of God's commands when his people seek to understand if there is a principle that it is demonstrating, something that could be more readily or more widely applied than the specific rule alone.  Legalists talk like this, they draw bright lines in the sand on specific rule iterations and decry the ability of people to use wisdom, reason, experience, compassion, hope, or any other God-honoring quality to think through life's circumstances on their own.  This doesn't mean that one can excuse murder or adultery by talking about the principle at issue, but it does mean that many commands that God gave to Israel that were specific to the Ancient Near East and an agrarian economy will still be able to offer some insight to his people today.  The way FFOZ views the Law, if you don't own an ox, for example, all such portions of the Law of Moses have no meaning or purpose for you, they can ONLY speak to those who do and no one else.  In a sad bit of irony, for all their talk about an eternal Torah that can never change, their literalist and legalist view of it makes it less relevant for today than among the so-called "replacement theologians" of the Church whom they mock as fools.

The boundary between Israel and the nations was destroyed by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  I know that FFOZ has redefined Paul's words in Ephesians 2:14, "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility," but the Jewish context (they should like this, right?) of the verse is Paul talking about the literal (more irony) wall that kept Gentiles from coming any closer to the Temple being destroyed by Jesus.  The Church didn't make one new people out of two by uniting them in the Body of Christ, Jesus did that.

The Torah isn't "canceled by grace," that's more pejorative language framing the victory of Jesus in a negative light.  Jesus established a New Covenant, in his own blood, with all the peoples of the world.  This idea is anathema to FFOZ, their false zeal will never accept that God would make a covenant with Gentiles.  The New Covenant is established by grace, just as the Mosaic was.  Grace has always been God's mechanism in relating to humanity, it can be no other because God is holy and humanity is most certainly not.  Once again, it was not replacement theology that removed the designation of clean and unclean food laws, but God himself {the Gospel of Mark (7:19) and the book of Acts (Peter's vision in chapter 10)"}.  The problem FFOZ has isn't actually with the Church, it is with what God chose to do and revealed in scripture. 

Lesson 48, page 18

"The Torah curses anyone who moves a boundary stone (Deuteronomy 27:17).  According to the Prophet Hosea, God pours out His wrath like water on those who move boundary stones (Hosea 5:10)."

"1. List replacement theology's four preferred methods of explaining the Torah's ceremonial commandments."

"2. What boundaries are either moved or eliminated in replacement theology."

"Group Discussion: Employing the same metaphor of a boundary stone as an established social, legal, or religious distinction, what are some other boundaries that should not be altered."

It probably isn't healthy if I shout at the screen while typing the quotes for this presentation, but it wasn't easy to refrain this time.  Lancaster just finished lecturing the Torah Club on the need to NEVER abandon the 'literal' meaning of Torah in favor of an allegory or spiritualized meaning because this would lead to the folly of Solomon, something he says the Church has done, and ONE PAGE later he does exactly that by turning Dt. 27:17's commandment about actual physical (i.e. literal) boundary stones {something very important in the A.N.E.} into a condemnation of the Church for supposedly moving God's ("allegorical, symbolic, spiritual"?) "boundary stones" contained in the eternal Torah.  Are the people in Torah Clubs awake?  Can there be a more blatant use of, "Do as I say, not as I do."?  

This blatant hypocrisy shouldn't keep us from also seeing that FFOZ has pronounced that the Church (Lancaster has defined "replacement theology" as Church orthodoxy, so it is all of us) is cursed of God for this supposed moving of boundary stones.  FFOZ has pronounced that God will pour out his wrath upon the Church for not upholding the literal eternal commands of Torah.  How can anyone be in a Torah Club, answer these questions, and then fellowship with his/her church again?  The publicly stated goal of Torah Clubs is not to pull people from church fellowship, but the teaching absolutely makes this more likely.  That this bashing of the Church happens over and over again and has been going on throughout FFOZ's history, makes it likely that this is a deliberate act, a purposeful choice.

If you need more evidence, the Group Discussion question calls the boundary stone command a metaphor.  It spiritualizes the commands and asks Torah Club participants to think of new ways to apply it. Can this really be the same lesson that was calling such actions the "folly of Solomon" one page earlier?  Yep.  The open-ended discussion question feels creepy to me.  What "boundaries" are they seeking to reinforce?  

Lesson 48, page 20 (quote begins on page 19)

"The apostles extended the Torah's prohibitions...Didache 2.2, 3.4)"

I know, you might be saying, "Let it go, Indiana."  Just a short reminder as we close that the author of the Didache is unknown.  We don't know if the author was "apostolic" or not.  Keep in mind, that while FFOZ is willing to quote a few short lines from the Didache to try to portray it as a pro-Torah observance document, they are at the same time claiming that from the 2nd generation of the Church onward the teachings of the Apostles was already lost, which feels odd if the apostles worked to "extend" a Torah prohibition.  The lack of consistency is noted.  Ok, so this is really the last thought: If the Didache "extends" the, as they believe, eternal and unchangeable Torah, isn't that wrong?  They think Torah can never, ever, be modified even by Jesus, how could the Didache choose to further define idolatry?

 

Sermon Video: The Full Armor of God - Ephesians 6:10-17

Before concluding his letter, the Apostle Paul offers an extended military metaphor about spiritual warfare.  We learn that our enemy is not other human beings, but rather the schemes of the Devil and his minions.  Against such foes we don't need the weapons of man, but the armor gifted to us by God: truth, righteousness, the Gospel, faith, salvation, and the Word of God.

Our call, in this fight, is to stand firm.  Stand where we have been planted by the Lord.

Rethinking the Five Solae - by Jacob Fronczak (FFOZ, 2021) - full rebuttal by Pastor Powell

In many of its publications, the First Fruits of Zion presents itself as an educational organization that is simply trying to help the Church learn more about the aspects of the Jewish people and Judaism that form the background of the Bible.  Sometimes, however, they drop the pretense and go full-on Anti-Church revealing their belief that both Christianity and the Church were never meant to exist and have had an "incomplete Gospel" since the generation after the Apostles.

Rethinking the Five Solae by Jacob Fronczak is a prime example of FFOZ's hostility toward the Church and the key theological truths that have been believed by followers of Jesus for centuries.  This isn't just a random book that FFOZ happens to publish, not only is it consistent with what is scattered throughout the Torah Club series, Jacob serves as the co-host of their public facing Messiah Podcast.  As of this date, the book is still available on their website, they are still profiting from its sales.

Which is what helps make the actual content of this book so very alarming.  It is the worst book that I have read in the past twenty-five years.  There are two primary reasons: (1) It is built upon a click-bait title / premise that it doesn't begin to substantiate, and uses the unethical polemic of the Straw Man argument and the argument Ad Absurdum {i.e. Jacob doesn't argue against what Protestant actually believe, but against the most absurd version of his opponents ideas}. (2) It contains a host of dangerous false ideas, among them: That the Trinity is a construct, not an idea derived from scripture, that the scriptures were given to the Jewish people alone and nobody else has the right to interpret them, that the New Perspective on Paul ought to convince Protestants to abandon the idea of being saved by Christ alone through grace and faith alone, that congregational polity is folly and what we really need is a human authority that can force people to obey, and lastly, that the Messianic Jewish movement will never be taken seriously until it abandons its ties to Evangelicalism and embraces the structure of Orthodox Judaism.

The six-part series to follow interacts with well over 100 quotes directly from the book.  For those wishing to utilize it, the PowerPoint from the videos is here: Rethinking the Five Solae - full rebuttal PowerPoint

Part 1: Sola Scriptura (a)

Part 2: Sola Scriptura (b)

Part 3: Sola Fide (a)

Part 4: Sola Fide (b)

Part 5: Sola Gratia

Part 6: Solus Christus & Soli Deo Gloria

Sermon Video: Serving Wholeheartedly in Tough Situation - Ephesians 6:5-9

 

The last group to be addressed by Paul after wives, husbands, fathers, and children, are slaves and masters.  The message that Paul has for them spells out a principle that is equally relevant in our era's employees and employers: treat the work you are doing as if it was for the Lord.  When we do this, we not only treat other people, whether they are customers or co-workers, as if they are Jesus and worthy of kindness and respect, but we treat the work itself as if it has dignity and purpose even if that would be otherwise difficult for us to recognize. 

God cares about every worker, and God cares about the work that we do.  Our whole lives belong to God, including our careers.

Pastor James Allen (Swan Lake Evangelical Free Church, MN) warns about Frist Fruits of Zion

 

As Pastor James explains in the introduction, he and I connected a few weeks ago and I was happy to share my research with him as he prepared to lay out the case against FFOZ to his congregation.

Pray as other pastors and church leaders are made aware of FFOZ that they too will recognize the danger, and pray that they will have both the courage to act and wisdom in how to address the issues.

Sermon Video: A Household in Harmony: Parents and Children - Ephesians 6:1-4

Speaking to both children and their parents, the Apostle Paul gives timeless direction that is as applicable to Greco-Roman world of the 1st Century, as it is to our own post-modern Western culture.  (1) Children need to obey their parents, (2) parents need to not exasperate (frustrate) their children.

In this case Paul embraces the time-honored tradition of parental authority because it is the right thing to do.  Human nature requires it, kids need guidance.  However, this isn't a heavy-handed dictatorship that Paul is advocating, the command to fathers (mom isn't exempt) to not make this process difficult for their kids reminds us that all of us have value in God's sight, men and women, adults and children.

Our culture may be very different from that of the Ephesians, but these truths remain timeless.

sermon video: Christ and the Church - Ephesians 5:29-33

In the beautiful conclusion to his analogy between Christ and the Church and husbands and wives, the Apostle Paul emphasizes what we already know from history: Christ loves the Church as much as he loves himself.  In fact, there is no relational love that can surpass the love of Jesus Christ for the Church, not even that of a husband for his wife (or a parent for their child).  God's love for us, in Christ, is perfect in every way.

Our response, then, as we seek to be Christ-like in our discipleship, is to recommit to loving our spouse as we love ourselves.

 

Sermon Video: Husbands, love your wives - Ephesians 5:29-33

In a stunningly powerful analogy, the Apostle Paul tells Christian husbands that they are to love their wives, "just as Christ loved the church."  Since we know that Christ loved the Church perfectly and self-sacrificially, the bar is set higher than we could imagine.

The only way to live up to it (while depending on the power of the Holy Spirit) is to love our wives as we love ourselves.  Indeed, Paul tells us that loving your wife IS loving yourself.

Sermon Video: Submission for Christ - Ephesians 5:21-24

The Apostle Paul lays the foundation for a discussion about specific commands that apply to segments of the Church (wives, husbands, children, fathers, slaves, and masters) by laying a foundation of mutual submission "out of reverence for Christ."  Given that we must all submit to each other to imitate the servant's heart of Jesus, what then does Paul ask of wives (the focus of these 4 verses)?

How we understand Paul's command that wives submit to their husbands often says more about our cultural setting than that of Paul.  Rather than uplift or tear down an American cultural understanding of gender roles in society (or idolize a rose-colored vision of the 1950's), our key task is to embrace the goal/purpose that Paul's instructions had for the church at Ephesus: peace within households.

What this will look like within any given marriage is something the Holy Spirit can help that husband and wife understand as both seek God-honoring choices.

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #47: Only one ancient source gets bashed, the Christian one

 

One of the challenges that I face when responding to the false teachings of the First Fruits of Zion is that they utilize sources that most Christians are unfamiliar with.  These range from the vast collections of rabbinic sources contained in the Talmud (Mishnah, Gemara) to more obscure apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings from the centuries before and after the life of Jesus.  In virtually every instance, the source being cited isn't framed with details about it, it is simply utilized and given a measure of implicit authority.

We saw, to our horror, in lesson 46 that FFOZ was willing to name-drop the Gospel of Thomas without any word of caution related to this pseudepigraphal (NOT written by the Apostle Thomas) heretical Gnostic work.  That mention of Thomas was a serious red flag (added to our huge list), but it wasn't long before someone who had been invited to join a Torah Club sent me quotes from a different series to show that this usage of the Gospel of Thomas was only the tip of the iceberg:

Jesus my Rabbi, lesson 18, volume 2, "The Days of Noah", p. 11 (as a parallel to Lk 17:24-27)

Jesus my Rabbi, Lesson 26, volume 2 "The Four Questions" p. 8-9

Jesus my Rabbi, Lesson 28, Volume 2, The 7 Woes, p. 4 (as a parallel to Mt. 23:13)

To employ such a false gospel so broadly is beyond dangerous, to draw comparisons between it and the true Gospels that it borrows from is ridiculous.  

Which brings us to lesson 47 of the Beginning of Wisdom which will showcase FFOZ's willingness to positively interact with a variety of sources without mentioning their background or theological bent, except the one that is used that is explicitly Christian.  Note: FFOZ almost never quotes any Christian source, with the rare exception of ones that are from Messianic Jewish authors (even these are rare and limited).  This usage is thus highly unusual, a rarity.  It does, however, follow the pattern of FFOZ's long-standing hostility toward the Church.

Lesson 47, page 4

"The Torah presents life as a choice between two ways: the path of blessing and the path of curse...The path of blessing that leads to eternal life is narrow and only a few find it, whereas the path that leads to destruction is broad and well-traveled (Matthew 7:13-14)."

Before looking briefly at this quote, note that above it the lesson quotes "Sifrei" without any reference to where this quote can be found.  The glossary at the end of the lesson calls Sifrei, "The earliest collection of rabbinic discussions on the book of Deuteronomy compiled in the second century CE."  The date given is earlier than it ought to be (more likely 4th century than 2nd), but there's no reason to object to the utilization of a rabbinic source when discussing Torah, so long as we remember that the author was not someone who accepted that Jesus was the Messiah, a distinction I've yet to see FFOZ make, as that may have colored the interpretation of the scriptural text in question.

What about this usage?  The problem with using the quote from the Sifrei commentary is that the comparison of God's warnings about blessings and curses in the Mosaic Covenant and Jesus' warning of the wide and narrow paths in the New Covenant are not the same thing.  {Note: FFOZ operates under the belief that the New Covenant hasn't started yet, that we are all living still under the Mosaic}.  When ancient Israel obeyed or disobeyed the Mosaic Law it was not souls that were at stake but national blessings or curses.  Repeated disobedience might bring into question whether a particular individual had faith in God (see Hebrews 11), but Dt. 30:19 is the LORD speaking to the nation as a whole about collective blessings and curses, not to individuals.  Jesus, on the other hand, is talking to individuals about their choice to live by faith or not.  The narrow/wide path that Jesus is talking about doesn't lead to blessings/curses but to salvation/damnation.  

This then becomes another example of FFOZ creating confusion between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, and between national Israel's covenantal relationship with God and that which exists between God and all who come to Jesus in faith.  For an organization that believes that Gentiles can only be grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel as "sojourners in the land" such confusion is not a bug, its a feature. 

Lesson 47, page 7

"The Apostolic-era rabbi Eleazar Ben Azariah"

The lesson has no issue with quoting Eleazar Ben Azariah several times with only the small note that he is from the "Apostolic-era" {Note: Eleazar Ben Azariah isn't in the lesson glossary}.  Eleazar was indeed a first-century rabbi, having lived through the destruction of the Second Temple.  There are no preserved writings of Eleazar that mention Jesus Christ.  Once again, this is a rabbinic source that could offer some insight into the ideas/attitudes of 2nd Temple Judaism, as well as the aftermath of the loss of the Temple and Levitical system, but he also continues the pattern of relying for wisdom upon sources that rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

Lesson 47, page 9

"When a person ascertains the intention behind a commandment (the so-called "spirit of the law"), he might fee liberated from literally observing the commandment.  The sages warn us not to try to be wiser than the Torah."

The first sentence would feel right-at-home among legalists in any era.  Notice the subtle ways in which the statement is framed: (1) "spirit of the law" is in quotes and preceded by "so-called," it is clear that in Lancaster's mind the attempt to seek and obey God's command on this level of principle is folly.  (2) A "literal" obedience is the only true obedience, this thought is buttressed by the support of the sages (without a quote or authority, take FFOZ's word for it).

Lesson 47, page 11

"(1 Enoch 90:38-39)...This type of apocalyptic symbolism helps explain the meaning of Peter's vision of a four-cornered sheet lowered from heaven containing "all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air (Acts 10:12)...The vision did not supplant the Bible's dietary laws." 

Another source is cited, this time it is 1 Enoch, the only information about it given is that it falls under the category of "Jewish apocalyptic writers".  1 Enoch actually has a fascinating history and a connection to Jude 1:14-15, but that background information is lacking in the lesson.  Instead, FFOZ uses 1 Enoch as an interpretive lens to frame Acts 10 in a way that preserves the all time, all peoples, all places view they have of the Law of Moses.  The problem with this particular framing attempt is that it is flat-out contradicted by the context of Peter's vision as emphasized by Luke in Acts.

Acts 10:48  So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Acts 11:1-3  The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

If Peter didn't think his vision had anything to do with dietary laws, if he thought it only concerned Gentiles and had nothing to do with how he should live as a Jewish follower of Jesus, why did he stay at Cornelius' house, eat with his family, and then defend that action when criticized?  If the Law of Moses was still binding on everyone, why did Peter sin?  Context matters, FFOZ's blithe "The vision did not supplant the Bible's dietary laws" ignores the key conclusion to the episode that is right there to be read in Acts.  Peter did what he did because he understood the far-reaching implications of the vision God had given him.

Lesson 47, page 12

"Group Discussion: Let's start an argument.  Divide the Torah Club into two competing teams, with one team arguing that Peter's vision of a sheet in Acts 10 means a change to the dietary laws and the other group arguing that the vision sanctions the inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom.  Have fun." 

One last thought before turning to the harsh way that FFOZ treats the only Christian source in the lesson: What is going on here??  They've already proclaimed (wrongly) that Peter's vision does not have anything to do with what they believe to be eternal dietary laws, so what purpose can this serve?  There is no debate in FFOZ's eyes.  The end result of this play acting will be mockery of those who hold the view that followers of Jesus are not bound by the Law, in other words, mockery of Christians, whether they be Jews or Gentiles.

Lesson 47, page 15

"A forgotten Apostolic-era midrash embedded in the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas...For the remainder of this discussion about the dietary laws, we'll work inside the Epistle of Barnabas.  You won't find Epistle of Barnabas in your Bible.  It does not belong in your Bible.  The Apostle Barnabas did not write it.  The epistle dates to the early second century (circa 130 CE).  An anonymous Christian composed the epistle to marshal various proofs to support the premises of replacement theology."

Prior to page 15 this lesson has quoted Sifrei, Eleazar ben Azariah, Sifra Kedoshim, 1 Enoch, Josephus' Antiquities, Genesis Rabbah, and Leviticus Rabbah, all sources that were pro-Torah keeping, all referenced with a positive usage and no further explanations necessary.  How will the Epistle of Barnabas be treated in comparison?  The contrast couldn't be more stark.

Let me be clear, while this epistle was copied in Codex Sinaiticus (along with Shepherd of Hermas) it is not scripture, and had no genuine prospect of being included in the canon.  It was written by a Second Century follower of Jesus, and like any non-inspired writing from God's people has both positive and negative aspects, both truth and error.  It thus has as much authority as any of the other sources regularly utilized by FFOZ in Torah Clubs, with one hugely important distinction: Its writer believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  The same cannot be said of anyone else quoted in this lesson.  Does that make him automatically smarter or more trustworthy?  Of course not, but if the topic-at-hand has any connection to the Gospel (i.e. faith, grace, works, Law, Messiah, etc.) its author is someone who has accepted what God has revealed as humanity's means of salvation.  That difference matters.

How is Barnabas treated?  (1) It is labeled as "apocryphal" and that idea is followed-up with a factual statement, "The Apostle Barnabas did not write it."  Amazingly, shockingly, appallingly, The apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (replete with heresies about Christ) is not given this modifier, to my knowledge, any of the times that FFOZ cites it.  Why would one pseudepigraphal (from Greek, "false writing") work be noted while another example is ignored?  The reason is simple, Barnabas' message is one of Torah abrogation by Christ, Thomas' message is of Gnostic mysticism.  FFOZ vehemently rejects the first truth, but embraces the second lie.

Notice also how FFOZ describes the unknown author of Barnabas: A "Christian" working to "support the premises of replacement theology."  Given that FFOZ has many times equated replacement theology (with a massively broad definition that includes the whole Church throughout our history) with racism in the form of antisemitism, they are letting Torah Club members know that the author of Barnabas is one of the bad guys.

Note: Later on page 15 FFOZ gives credit to everything they like in Barnabas as having originated with "the Jewish community - most likely from the Jewish disciples of Jesus" which ensures that everything negative can be contributed to the unknown Christian author.

Remember, we have noted multiple times when FFOZ utilizes a deeply heretical work (in lesson 46 it was the Clementine Homilies and Gospel of Thomas, many other examples have been given) in its teaching, almost never with any kind of warning or disclaimer, but when an author dares to write that the finished work of Jesus Christ has brought the era of the Mosaic Law to a close, the opposition is full-throated and sustained.

Lesson 47, page 16

"Contrary to this logic, there's no reason to suppose that 'a spiritual meaning' invalidates the literal application of a commandment, but many Bible teachers make the same mistake.  For example, many New Testament teachers declare the abolition of the Levitical worship on the basis that the sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's death.  Likewise, they might argue for the dissolution of the Levitical priesthood because the New Testament teaches that Christ has become a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.  Flawed logic like the type on display in Epistle of Barnabas is still alive and well in the Gentile Church.  Let's ignore the author's anti-Torah agenda and see what we can learn from the early Messianic Jewish midrash he uses.

1. What is the Epistle of Barnabas, and why is it not included in the Bible?

2. What was the purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas, and what theological position did it support?

Group Discussion: Explain why Torah Club uses the Epistle of Barnabas in this discussion if its a spurious epistle that should not be in the Bible.

In the quote, FFOZ draws a comparison between the author of Barnabas and "many Bible teachers" and "many New Testament teachers" who foolishly believe that because of Jesus a "literal" obedience to the Mosaic Law is not longer necessary.  Another reminder for us that to FFOZ the Church is the opposition and proselytizing its members is their growth plan, so it is little wonder to see historic orthodoxy called "flawed logic" that is "still alive and well in the Gentile Church."  A danger to the Church?  How could anyone think that about FFOZ? 

Note that FFOZ's strong opposition to the Epistle of Barnabas is reinforced by two study questions and the group discussion that includes the term "spurious" as its descriptor.

Lesson 47, page 19

"At this point in the manuscript of Epistle of Barnabas (10:6-8), the text departs abruptly from the Jewish source material by clumsily inserting three additional examples of prohibited land animals: the hare, the hyena, and the weasel.  The interruption is artless, comical, and obscene."

The assumed Jewish source material isn't the problem, it is the author's "artless, comical, and obscene" departure from it.  Got it.

Lesson 47, page 19

"After the interpolation concludes, the text of Epistle of Barnabas continues with a ridiculous criticism of the Jewish people for taking the Torah literally:...it's a fallacious argument."

To anyone who doesn't take the Torah literally (yes, this is not the right use of literally, legalists love the term, FFOZ included): Your ideas are ridiculous and fallacious.  

We just have one small problem: Jesus.  Ok, that's actually a huge, insurmountable problem for FFOZ.

Jesus in the Gospels repeatedly elevates the teachings of Torah to matters of the heart, including rough take-downs of those within 2nd Temple Judaism whose focus was on taking the Torah "literally" and not embracing the "so called 'spirit-of-the-law'" by putting God's intention and God's people first.  Jesus purposefully heals publicly on the Sabbath to make this very point, "Then he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.'” (Mark 2:27-28)

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #46: Venerating false Messiahs as men who pleased God

 

Would you expect a Christian ministry to include a story in one of their publications about the purity and righteousness of Joseph Smith?  How about one that speaks of the actions of Charles Russell (founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses) as an illustration of what the Apostle John was trying to teach about the love of God?  If that sort of veneration of false teachers was found in any publication of any reputable Christian ministry or denomination, the uproar would be loud, widespread, and entirely justified.  I could have chosen Buddha or Confucius to make this point, Gandhi or the Dalai Lama, or any number of people that are admired by many, even millions of people, but who did not have a relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  We can admire someone, we can be fascinated by their life story or what they accomplished, but only God sets the standard for who is righteous in his sight, and that status is only possible through his Son.  To venerate anyone as a righteous person who pleased God WIHTOUT Jesus is an anathema to the Gospel, it is blasphemy.  

That's exactly what First Fruits of Zion has done in Lesson 46 of the Beginning of Wisdom, they just did so by using 18th century European mystics that are not as familiar as my examples are to an American.  To be clear, this objection is not an indictment of the life of either of the two Jewish leaders that FFOZ chose to venerate, nor is it an indictment of Judaism, or even Hasidic Judaism, the branch of Judaism the two of them were instrumental in founding / shaping, in particular.  They may have been good men, they may have been wise in their area of study, they may have been loving and kind, even exceptionally so.  They may be worthy of veneration within the religious movement they helped give direction to.  What they are not, what they cannot be, no matter what, is an example of someone whose righteousness pleased God.

To a universalist, that's an absurd statement.  If we set aside the bedrock truth of God's Word that, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" because, "There is no one righteous, not even one." (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:10 & 3:23), and we set aside the bedrock truth spoken by Jesus, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," (John 14:6), we would find ourselves in a world where people who are decent, good, even righteous in human eyes who should be lauded and praised for rising above the evil in this world.  BUT, we don't live in that world.  The reality is that there are none who are righteous in God's sight, all have sinned, and "the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23).  Without Jesus Christ, without faith in him to save us from our sins, we are entirely and irrevocably lost, period.  Whether this Truth is palatable or not, it is the Gospel given to us by God.  There is no other path, no Plan B or consolation prize, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is not other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12).

Unless you are a universalist of some kind, someone who doesn't believe that Jesus is necessary for salvation, at least for some people...

Lesson 46, page 15
"A similar story is told about the Baal Shem Tov.  It happened once that the Ball Shem Tov realized a heavenly decree had been issued against the Jewish community.  He determined to persuade God to reverse the decree.  Like Moses praying to enter the promised land, he threw himself into prayer and fasting, wrestling with God, so to speak.  He refused to relent until hie managed to reverse the decree and save the Jewish community.  However, the victory came at a great personal price.  A heavenly voice informed him that he had forfeited his own place in the World to Come.  Rather than grow despondent over the prospect, the Baal Shem Tov rejoiced.  He said, 'At last, I will know that my service of God is born purely out of a heart of love for Him and devotion to Him and not out of any hope for reward or fear of punishment.'"

Before we look at what FFOZ said about him, the Reader's Digest version of who Baal Shem Tov was: Baal Shem Tov, or "Master of the Good Name," is how Israel ben Eliezer (1700-1760) is known.  Israel was a Polish Jewish mystic who is regarded as the founder of Hasidic Judaism (a segment of ultra-Orthodox Judaism originating in Eastern Europe, most followers of it today live in the USA or Israel).  Today his life is surrounded by legends of miracles, so much so that the apostate Bart Ehrman has used him as an example to discredit the eyewitness account in the Gospels of the miracles of Jesus Christ by saying that eyewitnesses believed Baal Shem Tov to be a miracle worker too.  

From the Jewish Encyclopedia article on his life: {Besht is an abbreviation of Baal Shem Tov}

"The foundation-stone of Ḥasidism as laid by Besht is a strongly marked pantheistic conception of God. He declared the whole universe, mind and matter, to be a manifestation of the Divine Being; that this manifestation is not an emanation from God, as is the conception of the Cabala, for nothing can be separated from God: all things are rather forms in which He reveals Himself. When man speaks, said Besht, he should remember that his speech is an element of life, and that life itself is a manifestation of God. Even evil exists in God. This seeming contradiction is explained on the ground that evil is not bad in itself, but only in its relation to man."

With that brief consideration of the life of Baal Shem Tov (Israel ben Eliezer) in mind, how does FFOZ choose to connect this mystic to its lesson?  By praising a bold assertion of heresy.  In the story related to the Torah Club members by Lancaster and FFOZ, God rewards Baal Shem Tov by answering his prayer, but at the cost of condemning his soul.  This supposed "bargain" with God not only elevates Baal Shem Tov to a messianic level (he supposedly saved his entire people from destruction by sacrificing himself), it also portrays God in a blasphemous way as a God who would trade the soul of one he loves simply to change his own mind.  God has never condemned a soul unjustly as he is portrayed as doing in the story FFOZ cites.  Such a God is unworthy of worship and praise, that's who God would be if he let Abraham go through with sacrificing Isaac, such a God is NOT the God of the Bible.  

To recap the dangerous errors of using this example of Baal Shem Tov in the lesson: (1) It venerates a false Messiah-figure, (2) it treats the actions of a non-believer as righteous before God without reference to faith in Christ, (3) and by extension it puts an implicit stamp of approval on Baal Shem Tov's heretical pantheism.

Lesson 46, page 15
"Once, it happened that the disciples of Schneur Zalman (1745-1812), the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, overheard their rabbi in ecstatic prayer, crying out, 'I don't want your Paradise, I don't want your World to Come, I want only You.'  These stories illustrate the Apostle John's words, 'There is not fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.  We love, because He first loved us.'"(1 John 4:18-19)."

Before we look at what FFOZ said about him, the Reader's Digest version of who Schneur Zalman was: Schneur was a Russian Jewish rabbi commonly known as the Alter Rebbe who was the founder and first Rebbe (spiritual leader) of Chabad (a dynasty with chosen successors), which is a branch of Hasidic Ultra-Orthodox Judaism.  The 7th Rebbe Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (d. 1994) taught that Baal Shem Tov was a divine manifestation (known as Sephirot) of infinite faith, and that Schneur Zalman was a divine manifestation of infinite wisdom.  By many of his followers in the movement, Schneerson is believed to have been the Messiah; that's the movement that Zalman founded, and the one that FFOZ is linking its teaching to.  

In case you are wondering, linking to the Lubavitch Movement and its messianic claims is the kind of thing that would shock both liberal and conservative rabbis within Messianic Judaism.  FFOZ isn't building bridges here, they're lighting them on fire.

With that brief introduction into Schneur Zalman in mind, how does FFOZ choose to connect this mystical rabbi to the lesson?  By making him an example of what the Apostle John was teaching about perfect love.  This use is beyond the ordinary false teaching of FFOZ into the realm of outright blasphemy as it is telling Torah Club followers that the Apostle John, the very disciple whom Jesus loved, was talking about someone like Schneur Zalman in 1 John.  What's the problem with this connection?  The answer is simple, and it doesn't have anything to do with Zalman's life except one fact about it.  John's entire contextual (the part FFOZ likes to ignore) thesis in 1 John is that any true and genuine believer must have 3 things to prove they have the genuine faith that pleases God: (1) walking in the light / obeying God's commands, (2) love for our fellow brothers and sisters in the faith, and (3) affirmation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  Take away one of them and the whole thing falls apart.  

1 John repeats these 3 factors over and over, fifty-two times to be exact {I know because I wrote a book on the subject: Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of 1 John}, with thirty-one positive statements on how to demonstrate you are part of God's family, and twenty-one negative statements that show who is not.  Of these, seventeen are about what we believe, eleven times John says we must affirm Jesus (as the Christ, the Son of God, who came in the flesh) and six times we are told we cannot deny Jesus and be in God's family.  In case you're curious now, there are fourteen statements in John about our need to love each other, which leaves twelve about our need to follow God's commands.  That is what John is actually teaching, in context.

HOW could Zalman know the "perfect love" that "casts out fear" if he didn't know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?  If he had confidence before God, it was a false confidence because it was based upon his own work not that of Jesus Christ.  If he did not feel fear when contemplating standing before Almighty God in judgment, he should have, because all who will stand before God without the being clothed in the righteousness of Christ will be condemned.  Being good, kind, loving, smart, zealous, none of it matters.  Our faith is in Christ, and Christ alone.  Faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone.  As a reminder, FFOZ utterly rejects the Five Solae of the Reformation: Rethinking the Five Solae

The stories of Baal Shem Tov and Schneur Zalman are NOT stories that illustrate what the Apostle John was teaching in 1 John.  To claim this, as FFOZ has done, is to deny the necessity of the saving Blood of Jesus Christ because John's entire point is that our connection to the love of God must be through Jesus.  We already know from Aaron Eby's, "What Replaces Replacement Theology?" that FFOZ is willing to hint that the Jewish people don't need Jesus to be saved.  This lesson is a much bolder assertion, it proclaims that men who have been elevated to the status of prophets, or even that of a Messiah, by their followers, who have thus led many astray away from God's salvation, should be venerated as wise and righteous despite having no connection to Jesus Christ.

The average American sitting in a Torah Club hearing this lesson won't know who either of the Jewish mystics are that FFOZ chooses to proclaim as heroes of the faith.  Most will assume that both were Messianic Jews, that they shared with them a belief in Jesus.  Ignorance is not bliss.  What FFOZ is doing in this lesson is heretical (an implicit statement that Jews don't need Jesus since these men who rejected him are elevated to saint-like status), blasphemous (ascribing "perfect love" to someone who doesn't know Jesus, thus equating human effort with divine grace), and grossly cynical as it depends upon their followers being unwilling to examine what they're being taught.

For the sake of those who are being led astray by FFOZ, I wish I was only able to find small errors or follies, but the opposite is true.  The dangers of FFOZ are very, very real.