On November 15th, the six churches in the SW of MN that belong to the Evangelical Free Church of America denomination {EFCA website} jointly issued a letter signed by each church's pastor outlining their opposition to the First Fruits of Zion. Those of you who have frequented my blog or my YouTube channel are well aware that I've worked steadily these last three years at spreading awareness about the unorthodox and heretical teachings of this organization. Thus, for me, it is an encouraging sign to now be aware of a second pastoral body (the Franklin Christian Ministerium being the first) that has recognized the threat and been willing to take collective public action in response.
The letter contains numerous rationales for this action, including a list of seven dangerous ideas taught by FFOZ, and concludes with the following key lines, "Given all of the above, we consider it our duty to warn our congregation against participation in these groups, and call upon those who do so now, and especially those who are promoting them, to turn from the errors within FFOZ. The gospel of free grace in Christ for salvation and sanctification really is at stake. We feel compelled to give this warning, while fully aware that many who participate in FFOZ may not be aware of the problematic nature of the organization with which they are studying. Our hearts are not to condemn. Rather, we pray that this information will serve to protect and exhort those within our congregations."
The letter also contains three footnotes (#s 1,3,4) that I would like to highlight: 1. We are indebted to the labors of Pastor Randy Powell of First Baptist Church of Franklin, Pennsylvania in bringing much of this to light. Much of the content of this letter and the supporting research and documentation was taken directly from him, with his heartfelt permission."
In response, let me say that it was profoundly emotional for me to read those words when the letter was sent to me. I did not anticipate them mentioning my role behind-the-scenes in providing research and insights to these pastors, and I am humbled that they chose to do so. I will in turn acknowledge my debt to my congregation who have generously allowed me to follow my call in ministry by serving in this capacity without being jealous of the time I've devoted to it, as well as the pastors and professors who helped me develop my own hermeneutical and exegetical skills and my love for the faith handed down to us. None of us stand alone, none of us serve alone, by God's grace we all help each other along the way.
3. For the sake of accountability, we asked the EFCA Director of Theology and Credentialing, Greg Strand, to look into FFOZ. He has affirmed the following.
From the beginning fans of FFOZ have attempted to dismiss my research and the findings of the Franklin Christian Ministerium as an isolated case of misguided, fundamentalist, zealots. With each successive pastor, professor, and denominational leader who affirms that this teaching is indeed dangerous, that excuse grows thinner and thinner. The truth is, it didn't have any vitality to begin with given how ecumenically minded I and the Franklin ministerium have been for many years. We are a relatively diverse group, and we all see the same danger in FFOZ, now another leader within the Church who serves the EFCA has added his name in agreement.
4. Messianic Jewish Pastor Matt Frey from Grafted Church in St. Louis Park and Dr. Michael Rydelnik, retired professor of Jewish Studies from Moody Bible Institute, both contributed invaluable clarification between the Hebrew Roots and Messianic Jewish Movements.
Two individuals I look forward to working with, Lord willing, in the future. Given that FFOZ still claims to be a part of Messianic Judaism and vehemently denies being a part of the Hebrew Roots Movement (both claims being untrue on their part), the voices of men like Pastor Frey and Dr. Rydelnik will be invaluable moving forward as they can speak from within Messianic Judaism about these crucial matters of faith and practice.
Brother, there are so many things to go through, but can you show me where you got the notion that MJAA (IAMCS being the umbrella organization) currently have issues with FFOZ? I haven’t come across that, but it would be concerning if true.
ReplyDeleteThe letter from the EFCA pastors didn't specify that particular. I have personally had numerous private conversations with people in leadership of MJ organizations about FFOZ, and would anticipate that there will be various responses forthcoming, some perhaps publicly but also privately. When I follow-up with Pastor Allen I will request that documentation.
DeleteFeel free to share other questions, thoughts, or concerns, either on this site or with me directly.
DeleteThanks for your reply, brother. I'd love help in getting to the bottom of this. I came over here after hearing a message from one of the pastor's who signed this letter (found here: https://www.youtube.com/live/hF0X-imyN88?si=huylUgDMuUwymM_l). He attributed a lot (maybe all?) of his understanding of FFOZ to you. This letter likewise says that much of the content has come from you. I don't know if you have ever "named names" regarding the organizations of those leaders you've had personal conversations with, but it's interesting that they have mentioned the MJAA. If FFOZ were in good standing with prominent MJ organizations, how would that change how you relate to the claim that they've made here?
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't my intention in the Fall of 2022 when I first learned of this organization, but over the past three plus years I've become more/less the primary expert among those raising the alarm. It took diligent research to get here, so I do appreciate the acknowledgment from the MN pastors of my contribution. That being said, your question relates to the individuals and leaders within MJ organizations. On the topic of the HRM / FFOZ, I have a policy of confidentiality unless folks say that I'm allowed to share their view or story. Many are willing to take that step, but some cannot due to concerns about existing relationships that could be damaged. I understand and accept that concern, it is valid. Along those lines, I've spoken with a number of people within MJ, thus far Pastor David Harris (of the podcast that I did on Prof. Solberg's channel) is the one who has been willing to do so in a public format...Long story short, if MJ organizations embraced FFOZ in a public way, i.e. if they themselves said that they too are on the same path as FFOZ it would change one thing the most: my view of the MJ movement. It has been, thus far, an outgrowth of Evangelicalism, a movement rooted in orthodoxy and scriptural authority. If it were to abandon that (I don't think it is going to, this isn't a prediction) by aligning with FFOZ and the HRM in general, it would be a serious blow to the future of the MJ movement. Does that answer your question? Happy to dialogue further.
DeleteThanks for your willingness to engage. It’s important to talk about because of how little others know about it and because of how prominent your perspective has become on the topic.
DeleteDavid Harris doesn’t represent any MJ organizations as far as I know. Is that correct? I have seen on one of your previous posts a mention of a comment from someone from Jews for Jesus regarding an excerpt from an FFOZ-published book. What are the other organizationally-aligned people you’ve spoken with who haven’t wished to remain anonymous? I’m sure there are more, but you would know of them quicker than I can find them.
I’m curious also why it seems like you view FFOZ and HRM as one and the same. Have you come across this paper specifying the differences in your research? It’s from the organization these pastors have said take issue with FFOZ.
https://mjaa.org/1-5-2014-one-law-two-sticks-a-critical-look-at-the-hebrew-roots-movement/
Pastor David Harris led a MJ congregation for a number of years, but is not part of the leadership team of one of the larger "denominational" groups. To my mind, he represent a typical Jewish follower of Jesus in his attitudes and perspectives (as much as any one person can be ordinary or typical)...At this time I don't have any other names to share. When I have permission to do so, I will incorporate those statements/stories into either blog posts or YouTube videos. It is a process of education, showing people what is really being taught, and then letting them figure out how to best respond to that in their own personal and/or ministry setting. For some speaking up will come at a cost, my role is to offer clarity so that people can make decisions based on the available facts...I insist on calling FFOZ a part of the wider HRM movement for the sake of accuracy. FFOZ has chosen to gaslight people by scoffing at the notion that they have anything in common with the HRM, but it simply isn't an honest assessment. I also don't want the MJ movement to be tainted by association with FFOZ simply because FFOZ's leaders choose to portray themselves as a part of it. In the end, MJ is largely Evangelical in its history, theology, and outlook, FFOZ most assuredly (they would be the first to admit) is not. In Rethinking the Five Solae, Fronczak scolded those within the MJ movement for not abandoning their Evangelical origins in favor of placing themselves under the authority of Orthodox Judaism. It was an eye opener as to the ultimate goal and purpose of FFOZ, as well as the influence they hope to have on MJ...I am quite familiar with One Law Two Sticks. I incorporated it's findings into my original seminar back in 2023, it is an excellent paper. At this point the paper's view of FFOZ is outdated, but other than that, it offers much useful insight.
DeleteThat’s interesting to hear your thoughts on David Harris. It’s good to hear your estimation on him. He seems like somebody who is really serious about his love for Jesus. To be fair, though, might David Harris, even as a Jewish follower of Jesus, hold views that don’t align with what many in MJ would define as “Messianic Judaism”? And maybe it’s important also to parse out that Messianic Judaism is categorically something different than simply a Jewish person who follows Jesus. It just seems like maybe a bit of a leap to say, “I know a Jewish follower of Jesus who says that this group is not Messianic Judaism” (even though he does not hold any positions within Messianic Jewish organizations) and then use that to castigate FFOZ from MJ. Do you have documentation from MJAA that shows that the good standing they state they held with FFOZ at the time of that paper is now outdated? They state that their issue was FFOZ’s promotion of One Law, which I understand them to have taken quite drastic steps to disavow. Without One Law as a part of their package, what other issues do you think the largest Messianic Jewish organization in the world might have with FFOZ?
DeleteAlso curious if you have read any of David Rudolph’s contributions to HRM, MJ, and FFOZ.
I haven’t read that book by Jacob Fronzscak, but that sounds exactly the opposite from what I’ve heard him and others in FFOZ say regarding their relationship with their churches. How do you make sense of the contradiction? You’ve obviously done a lot of research, so I appreciate any insight you can give. It’d probably be best for me to just buy the book! Ha
I have great respect for David Harris, our many email conversations since this past Spring have been very encouraging, his love for the Gospel and for his Jewish brethren is deep. You are correct to say that MJ is a particular movement, not simply any Jewish person who follows Jesus. MJ arose from within Evangelicalism (even Jacob admits that in Five Solae where he calls upon MJ to abandon that origin in favor of Orthodox Judaism's perspective), and that is the measuring stick by which I seek to give clarity to the question of whether or not FFOZ is MJ or HRM {they can't really be both, too many fundamental differences}. In the end, FFOZ's foundational beliefs align with HRM not MJ, especially with respect to the Law's role in the New Covenant {which FFOZ vehemently denies that anyone today lives under}. Our hope (that of myself and others involved in this ministry) is that MJ organizations will clarify their beliefs with respect to the HRM, including FFOZ, so as to lessen the confusion caused by the desire of some within HRM (including FFOZ) to cloak themselves with the legitimacy of MJ...With respect to the One Law Two Sticks paper, at the time of its writing it was believed (clearly by the author) that FFOZ had indeed abandoned One Law theology (the firing of Tim Hegg being partial proof), and FFOZ indeed claimed to have done so. I have demonstrated with, by now, hundreds of examples that this just isn't true. One Law beliefs underpin everything they say and do. The conclusion they point to today, "Divine Distinction" appear to be something else, but it is a bait/switch {purposeful or not} where the Torah is still being held up as the only standard of righteousness for all peoples, places, and times. That being said, these teachings clash repeatedly with the stated beliefs of various MJ organizations...With respect to David Rudolph, I did a 4-part review of his, "Toward Paul's Ephesians 2 vision of the One New Man" {here is part 1:https://youtu.be/GmwfTtCN__Q}...Lastly, reading the Five Solae will be a real eye opener, there are things in that published book (that FFOZ continues to sell and profit from to this day) that are shocking in their heresy and the boldness of their attack on the Protestant Church. It certainly does appear to be a different Jacob than the one that hosts Messiah Matters podcast. I have speculated (and it can only be speculation) that the public persona vs. the actual teachings of FFOZ are a deliberate choice. It would be hard to believe that Boaz, Daniel, etc. aren't aware of what they are really doing and what the likely results will be (i.e. split churches, broken families, a far different 'gospel')...Hope all that helps. Happy to dialogue.
DeleteWhile the roots are there, it hasn’t taken much digging for me to notice that there are also some significant differences, namely surrounding the continuing relevance of the Torah. While some branches of MJ may have stemmed from Evangelicalism, that doesn’t mean they are one and the same, or even that they need to maintain general overlap. Protestantism came from Catholicism, but they have become two very different frameworks with significant disagreement over important matters. I don’t hear FFOZ today claiming to be both HRM and MJ, but rather to be firmly within MJ, and their position in the movement is affirmed by prominent MJ organizations as far as I can tell. Your supposition that what they are distributing (and as you cite) stand in contradiction to the position of MJ organizations doesn’t seem to hold water, though. Would it be more accurate to say that in your estimation as one outside of MJ, that what they teach — even with their latest stance of “Divine Invitation” — seems to stand in contradiction to MJ? Individuals who identify as being MJ, or even some organizations which identify as such, stating disagreement with aspects of FFOZ is quite different from conveying that the largest MJ organization has officially castigated them. For the sake of communicating clearly and accurately, and so that information that’s being posted in statements like this accords with reality, that seems important to clarify. There is no statement from MJAA or IAMCS or UMJC that classifies FFOZ as illegitimate or outside of MJ, but that’s concerningly what these pastors have understood your research to have revealed. What do you think about that?
DeleteRegarding your hope that MJ organizations “clarify their beliefs” regarding the HRM and FFOZ, isn’t the “One Law: Two Sticks” paper doing just that? I see the paper, and Rudolph’s in-depth examination of HRM found in the “One New Man” paper (of which your video reviewed the shorter version) concluding the following: that HRM is a Gentile-driven movement that seeks to circumnavigate or overlook the people of Israel and co-opt the Law as a universal requirement; whereas FFOZ, as the IAMCS paper commends, properly (in their estimation, though not in yours if I’m understanding you) delineates the different relationships that Jews and Gentiles have with the Law. So it seems like the issue is most foundationally who understands MJ better (the MJ organizations or outsiders), and who has gotten the “real scoop” on what FFOZ believes (the MJ organizations that have also engaged with their material and presumably vetted them personally/rigorously, or outsiders). I’m surprised and somewhat concerned because at this point it sounds kind of like you think that you are beholden to the more accurate position in both these matters, and that you alone know what MJ and FFOZ truly believe.
Brother, I also gotta say that I’m concerned about where your (confessed) speculation might be taking you and the effect it’s having in the Church. It’s dangerous territory to allow such to inform our judgment, and while church splits and broken families are always things to be on guard for, it seems that some of the ways you’re filling in the blanks could do the same, for example here with how you’re framing FFOZ’s relationship with MJ. To believe that the MJAA should condemn them based off what you understand MJAA’s and FFOZ’s beliefs to entail is a far cry from having the document that states the condemnation. As a teacher and “expert” on this subject, people are going to put extra weight to your words, and this seems like an instance where the bridge isn’t holding up. If the MJAA hasn’t ousted them and if the UMJC endorses them (alongside Rudolph’s seminary, which Tim Hegg disparages), then perhaps your understanding of the largest MJ organizations and/or the beliefs of FFOZ aren’t as clear as you believe them to be? You may protest by citing Rudolph, but even there there’s more that needs unpacking. While it’s accurate to say that Rudolph does view FFOZ’s position of what he describes as “Partial One Law” to be a separate category than MJ, he also states that it is a “scaled back form of Soft One Law” and “highly nuanced.” Without being able to ask Rudolph more questions about where the nuance is, other evidence should help clarify that FFOZ is more closely aligned with MJ than you have suggested (or maybe even that MJ is more closely aligned with FFOZ than you have supposed). Rudolph provides the UMJC’s quote stating that the Torah applies differently to Jews and Gentiles, the same position that FFOZ has reiterated since 2009. Being that the UMJC endorses and promotes FFOZ, it seems highly unlikely that they are unaware of some underhanded legalistic teaching that contradicts their beliefs (as I hear your proposing). Logically speaking, the relationship between Rudolph, FFOZ, and UMJC is different than you’re presenting if Rudolph positively quotes the UMJC’s position and the UMJC promotes both FFOZ and Rudolph. I hear your supposition that you think FFOZ is saying one thing and doing another, but maybe it might also indicate that you’re missing something or adding in what’s not there?
DeleteI also have thoughts on Fronzcak's book, but I'll post those later so as to not add more than is already here :)
DeleteSo, that's a lot to respond to all at once...What I hear you saying is concern that I'm not being fair to FFOZ by refusing to acquiesce to their claim of being a part of MJ and not being connected to HRM. I'll set aside questions about MJ itself given that I've striven to keep the focus on the organization whose work-product I have studied extensively rather than the broad umbrella of MJ that represents a number of viewpoints...I have demonstrated in exhaustive details with countless examples the unorthodox (and even heretical) teachings of FFOZ that I have no desire to see folks apply to MJ because of a claim of connection. There has been little said/done on this topic in recent years; the One Law paper is decades old now and doesn't reflect FFOZ's current stances on any number of key theological issues. It is helpful to understanding the broad outlines of the HRM, but very much needs to be updated.
DeleteIn the end, I have sought to bring clarity to a situation where there is much misunderstanding, a good deal of it purposeful (seemingly) on FFOZ's part. I have spoken to reputable voices within MJ that recoil at what FFOZ is doing, and I pray that as the truth is made known this conversation that I'm a part of will lead toward a firm and broad public rejection of any connection between FFOZ and MJ. Will that happen? God knows, not I. Does it need to happen? For the sake of MJ, I truly believe that it does. The longer the movement is emmeshed with various HRM voices, the harder it will be for it to have a healthy and biblical path forward.
I have studied the FFOZ side of this probably more than anyone who isn't a supporter of the organization, I've catalogued huge and deeply disturbing heretical teachings over and over in their materials. I could have ignored the claims of being MJ, but this world has far too much antisemitism in it already, I couldn't in good conscience shine the light on what FFOZ is doing without also trying to shield MJ from being harmed by it.
Ultimately, those with MJ will decide their own future, they will respond via their own consciences and the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Let me add this thought. FFOZ has had opportunities for the past three years to clarify their positions if they think I'm reaching conclusions not based on the evidence. They have chosen to not do so, but rather have released a podcast and later a web article making a mockery of the criticism and gaslighting their followers. The same held true when Fronczak watched the video that I put out with Prof. Solberg and Pastor Harris: No attempt to reckon with our concerns, no hint at all that there is any thought of changing course on any matter. They could have stated at any point in the last three decades that they believe in the Trinity (one key example), but have not.
ReplyDeleteAt a certain point, a teaching ministry has to be held accountable for what it teaches. An organization that steals sheep from churches needs to be called out for what it is doing.
My guess is that we will have to agree to disagree about the relationship between FFOZ and MJ, but I hope that you can see the danger in what FFOZ has done, is doing, and plans to do going forward. It is my sincere hope that they don't harm MJ with the fire that they have started, that's where my heart is in insisting on the differences between them.