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.
Thanks for your ongoing dialogue, brother. I don't hear anyone doubting that you've spent a lot of time going through their materials, but time with the materials doesn't mean that your conclusions are accurate. It seems like you've heard from others who are also familiar with their materials that you're misunderstanding or misrepresenting some things? That seems significant, no? It seems like maybe you're just chalking that up to "Well, they're supporters of FFOZ so of course they'll disagree with it." But it could also indicate that maybe you are, in fact, misunderstanding or misrepresenting them.
DeleteMy pushback on what you're saying through all of your posts (the labor of which is enormous!) is not that you refuse to "to acquiesce to their claim of being a part of MJ and not being connected to HRM," but rather that you are refusing to acquiesce to MJ organizations also seeing them as a part of MJ. It may have slipped through the cracks in light of everything else I posted, but just for the sake of objectivity, the UMJC lists FFOZ as an “endorsed organization.” FFOZ finds itself promoted on their page right alongside Kinzer's and Rudolph's higher education institutes and the Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council. Lest you think that this is some fringe group that's cherry-picking reputable figures to float some kind of outlandish, non-MJ fringe movement, Kinzer's congregation is a part of the UMJC, and Rudolph interacts positively with the UMJC's stance in the paper you mentioned. They are an authoritative, established MJ organization, the second largest after only the MJAA.
https://www.umjc.org/endorsed-organizations
So in light of that, there are several possibilities:
Delete- 1) You are spot on regarding what FFOZ actually believes. Everything that you’ve revealed about them is totally true — they hate the Church, they think people need to obey the Law to be saved and think faith in Jesus is silly. And, they’re not Trinitarians (in the Councils’ understanding of what that means). By extension, then, because the second-largest organization in MJ has publicly endorsed them, they also believe and practices dangerous heresy
- 2) You are spot on regarding what FFOZ actually believes. But FFOZ is being deceptive about what they actually believe and you alone, even among reputable scholars and theologians within MJ, have figured out that their beliefs and actions don’t actually align with MJ. All of those people who have told you that you’re misunderstanding or misrepresenting their beliefs are deceived and that’s because FFOZ is trying to deceive them. Most of those people haven’t engaged with enough of the material, and if they had, they would obviously come to the same conclusions as you. If the UMJC knew what you knew they wouldn’t list FFOZ as an endorsed organization
- 3) You are wrong about the beliefs of FFOZ but right about the beliefs of MJ. Thus, the conclusions you’ve come to regarding what FFOZ believes are misguided or misfounded. Their published materials match what they believe. They don’t think Gentiles should be obeying all of the Law. They believe that Jesus saves. They are firmly aligned with core aspects of MJ and that’s why the UMJC publicly endorses FFOZ. Realizing that the UMJC is aware of the teachings of FFOZ and thinks highly enough of them to publicly endorse them means you should backtrack, say that you had some crucial parts of the narrative wrong, and then maybe even try to make amends for all of the damage that’s been built off your incorrect understandings. After all, if the UMJC is okay in your eyes, then FFOZ needs to be as well.
- 4) You are wrong about the beliefs of FFOZ but that doesn’t really matter, because you have also been wrong about the beliefs of MJ. This means that while some of the things you have said about FFOZ might be overstated or incorrect, the UMJC’s endorsement of FFOZ has shown you what you said earlier in these comments: that the issues are actually in MJ (and by that I mean actual MJ organizations which differ significantly in certain theological aspects from Protestant/Evangelical groups). The UMJC publicly endorsing FFOZ means that MJ is maybe not as Evangelical in how they’re understanding some things as you assumed they were. Rather than sounding the alarm on FFOZ as an organization publicly endorsed by a prominent MJ organization, you need to start barking up the tree of the UMJC, Mark Kinzer, and David Rudolph.
My hunch at this point is that your reaction to the UMJC’s endorsement of FFOZ is going to be the last point, but I really hope it isn’t. It seems like maybe you have been thinking that MJ is what Fronzcak is saying it shouldn’t be? If you understand a guy like Matt Frey (who, though while Jewish, is theologically affiliated with the Evangelical Free Church) to be representative of MJ, then I can see how you’d get there. But both the MJAA and the UMJC are going to have doctrinal points that are firmly aligned with those of FFOZ, many of which I’ve seen you criticize. I would just hate for more of your time to be wasted and other church’s unity to be broken over something that, as you said, should really be an in-house issue (reserved for MJ). I can understand that this MJ issue has come to your door, and that you view it as your responsibility to protect the flock from the “sheep-stealers,” but again, that suggests that people who might begin to understand things from the perspective of say, the UMJC, are forfeiting relationship with Jesus.
DeleteThe conclusions you have come to via the resources you’ve examined are valid in that they’re what you’ve understood as an individual. But your conclusions are coming to rely more on speculation and chasing shadows than on substantive claims (as I think I showed in providing the qualifications made by Fronczak that significantly alter how I think people would receive your findings). Your conclusions seem to be invalid, though, when more evidence is brought to light, namely surrounding the affirmative position of IAMCS/MJAA and UMJC regarding whether or not their beliefs qualify as heretical or outside of MJ.
In this same vein, regarding Lancaster and the Trinity, even the extensive review of his “heretical” sermon that you have listed on your website includes a qualification from Lancaster that would necessarily exclude the possibility of his stance being one of modalism or subordinationism. (By that, I am referencing Lancaster’s statement that the Son is eternal and pre-existed with the Father, something both aforementioned heresies would deny.) By the way, which of us have been assigned the job of “Doctrine-of-the-Trinity-perfectly-articulated" police? I’m all about biblical faithfulness and doctrinal purity! You and I have that in common. But FFOZ seeming to deny the Trinity and a group explicitly denying it (Like LDS or JW) are two very different things — and this is where your speculation seems to be getting the best of you.
Again, it’s just highly concerning and very unlikely that you, without ever having spoken to any of the leaders of FFOZ, have the best picture of what they believe. Unless you’re going to claim that the leadership of the UMJC or the MJAA don’t care enough to vet or parse through the beliefs of FFOZ, it seems like you should just let this rest.
DeleteIt’s kind of like someone suggesting that the Bible endorses genocide, providing the “primary sources” by citing verses, and then concluding that the whole book is despicable. In this example, while it’s true that such a case could be made, the person has come to a partial and incomplete conclusion based on seeing what they want to see, not on actually trying to understand the intent or message of the Book. So, what do you do when someone reads all the things you’ve read and thinks there’s another way to hear it? What do you do when MJ organizations (obviously MJ is not monolithic an there will be varying opinions and perspectives among individuals and organizations) are not only silent about, but actually endorse the group you’ve claimed is not a part of MJ?
Well, that's a lot to respond to; this blog's format doesn't let me respond to one post at a time, so I'll do my best here at the bottom of the 4 you wrote...
DeleteI don't think any of the 4 scenarios you have asked me to choose are accurate, there is some truth to #2 and #4, but neither are articulated in a way that would reflect the reality of the situation. In the end, I'd have to say, "None of the above."
I don't claim to be the only one who can see this. Professor Solberg has spent a decade researching and writing about these issues, he and I have communicated extensively since the spring of 25, if there was a "gap" between what I claim and what he sees in these same materials, that would have been obvious to us both. The same holds true with Pastor David Harris, Dr. Michael Rydelnik (whom the MN churches consulted), and many other pastors. You've also haven't taken into account the steady stream of ex-Torah Club members who contact me to say, "Keep it up, I couldn't see this until I saw your video."
Honestly, there is a significant amount of deception coming from FFOZ, the mixed messages are either sloppy or intentional. I can also point to examples where they say something orthodox on one page (as with seemingly endorsing some aspects of the Trinity) but then undermine, even deny, that truth a page or two later. This happens repeatedly on numerous theological issues.
You have every right to conclude that, "They're not as bad as all that, let it go." I cannot. I can't unsee what I have seen, I can't forget the stories I've heard and the requests for help.
In the end, further study has not relieved my concerns, it has deepened them. For example, in the summer of 2025 they published an article outlining a new term they've invented: Proleptic Radial Ecclesiology, in which they proclaimed that the layout of the Tabernacle/Temple is eternal, thus Gentile followers of Jesus will never be equally the people of God as the Aaronic priests, Levites, Jewish men, and finally Jewish women who will always have greater access to God. The idea of the Torah as eternal, as the heart of God's redemptive plan (yes, above Jesus in many ways), is the lens through which all things are viewed. It colors everything and hasn't changed even as other beliefs of FFOZ have shifted over time.
I appreciate what you are saying, and have heard it in the spirit in which it was intended, but that path of dropping all this (and/or, rebuking my own analysis) would be a violation of both my conscience and my understanding of the Word of God.
I guess it could be a blend, but logically, there actually aren't really any other options. Do you see others? Your reflections here on the blog either are accurate depictions of their beliefs or they're not. Then add the layer of their being endorsed by the UMJC and you find yourself relating to a bigger issue than you've framed it up until this point. FFOZ IS a part of MJ, even if you have found Jewish believers or MJ synagogues/orgs/individuals in those orgs who would reject the ways that you are framing FFOZ's beliefs. To take this issue up with MJ would elevate this to what I fear would be unnecessary, and perhaps even ungodly, division just because you disagree with some points. I think it's plain that what you have stated, and others have repeated -- that FFOZ is NOT a part of MJ and is actually just HRM in disguise -- is false. Even the MJAA/IAMCS has yet to publish anything to the level that you think they should, and until that time it would be presumptive to assume that their view of FFOZ aligns with yours.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Solberg: are you referring to the video on which you were a guest where he referred to you as the expert and said that he hadn't had time to do hardly any of the research himself? A quote from that after mentioning that you reached out to him via email, "God's bringing me some answers that I haven't been able to find out myself." It seems a little dishonest to say that Solberg has arrived to the same conclusions as you have when he, at least at the time of the video, had yet to have any time to look into the sources himself. He was relying almost entirely on what you as the "expert" were understanding. You all engaged with mere portions and fractions of a larger video, and I even appreciated David Harris saying at various points that he didn't want to "put words into Boaz's mouth." Again, I feel like there's been a lot of that going on with the way you're engaging with FFOZ's primary sources.
Solberg's findings would be valid if the kinds of things you're saying FFOZ suggests were actually true. His article https://rlsolberg.com/gentiles-and-the-torah/ matches virtually 100% with what FFOZ has taken pains to repeatedly articulate with "Distinction Theology." Your claim that they are just saying one thing but doing another is not evidential but speculative. And again, that's fine, but it's not the smoking gun that you tout it as being.
Lastly, I'm sure that there are Torah Club leaders who go far beyond what FFOZ desires, teaches, and believes. This happens all the time in Christianity. People taking things to extremes does not conclusively mean that the extremes are built into the DNA of the organization. FFOZ has responded to these and has articulated the ways that people are going beyond what they believe. It actually makes sense to me that you would have people who are probably more aligned with HRM latch onto FFOZ because they assume that FFOZ thinks like they do. It makes total sense to me that you have people reaching out to you who confirm what you're seeing. We can go on some Reddit forums and find people who share stories about how dumb Christianity and the Church are because of bad experiences. Those stories, though, do not necessarily validate their claims. Christianity is true and the Church is, as God sees her and is building her up to be, good. But bad actors arise. I think there's plenty of room in FFOZ's primary sources to see that the bad experiences you hear about bring just as much distress to them. What can they do, though? It seems like the most they could do would be post some articles "throwing" those who take things too far "under the bus." (Which, again, I'm sure is not quite what they did.)
Have you ever read the book "Crucial Conversations"?
Even the way that you're interpreting Proleptic Radial Ecclesiology is chocked full of filling in the blanks!
ReplyDelete1) This is not a new idea simply coined by FFOZ. MJ has been talking about "prolepsis" for a long time. See this article
https://www.ruachisrael.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/What-Exactly-is-MJ-paper.pdf written by
https://ourrabbis.org/main/members/member-profiles/item/21-rabbi-stuart-dauermann
(he's not a one-off!) for examples. John P. Harrigan (not a MJ!) describes essentially exactly the same thing in his book "The Gospel of Christ Crucified" on p. 155. He also gives Israel a continuing and prominent role in redemptive history based off their primogeniture.
2) Even the way that you're framing it shows that you're either missing the point, or intentionally distorting it in order to sway others. It's in that article (I'm assuming this one: https://ffoz.org/messiah/articles/the-biblical-blueprint-of-peoplehood) that Eby articulates that Christ is at the center, and that organized around that, like the camp of Israel around the Tabernacle, are the rest of those in the Body of Christ. They see this as being what the Apostles may have had in mind as they described the ekklesia like the Body of Christ. Not sure what's controversial about that. Also, I didn't see anything about women being the nearest to God or Gentiles not "being equally the people of God." If that's the correct article, could you tell me where you got those ideas from, and if not the correct article, could you provide it?
3) This seems to be maybe an idea within post-supersessionism with which you're uncomfortable or disagree? It's definitely not just something FFOZ has "made up," though.
Regarding the Torah and Jesus, here we are again, without them stating that they view the Torah as more "at the heart" of God's redemptive plan, even more so than Jesus, without quotes that articulate such, is coming from your interpretation. And that's where I'm just encouraging you to realize that you may have a different (minority) perspective and qualify things with "as I'm seeing it," instead of "definitely what they think/believe because I'm only interacting with primary resources." I would again reference the example of the critical person and genocide in the Bible. At the end of the day, your understanding of the Word of God is important, but there is plenty in there about repenting when you're in error. At the very least it seems like it might be the right thing to do to correct what you've said about FFOZ not being a part of MJ?
We will have to agree to disagree about the definitions of the HRM and MJ and whether FFOZ belongs in the one or the other. I have repeatedly shown teachings that are not orthodox, ones that I have not seen endorsed by MJ. In the long run it will be up to MJ to define itself and its boundaries, not outsiders (including myself), and not Gentiles (which is largely the case with FFOZ given that it is primarily Gentile led and Gentile oriented). I can sense how passionate you are about wanting me to acquiesce to FFOZ's preferred self-definition, but that simply isn't going to happen. Again, if over time the leaders of MJ embrace the ideas put forth by FFOZ, that is their choice to make. For now, given that they have not, I will continue to distinguish between the two.
ReplyDeleteThe video with Prof. Solberg and Pastor Harris was last Spring. At that time he wasn't very familiar with FFOZ's publications, although we had discussed a number of things prior to the making of the video. When I stated that he, David, and I see these things the same way I was referring to (by now) hundreds of emails that have gone into great depth and looked at specific quotes and issues put forth by FFOZ. Given his broad HRM emphasis, I wouldn't expect Prof. Solberg to be up-to-speed on each and every ministry and teacher (there are hundreds of them out there), hence our original video.
With respect to the full videos that the clips were drawn from (of Boaz at Malchut), I have seen the entire video of each presentation from that year, and have transcripts. There were actually about a dozen such quotes we could have used [I used more in my seminar in 2023] from both Boaz and Daniel.
With respect to Proleptic Radial Ecclesiology. I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm taking them at their word. If the layout of the Temple is eternal, it will have the same restrictions as it did, the same barriers keeping women and Gentiles further from the presence of God. It has nothing to do with the Jewish people retaining a special status before God (I have never denied that they do), but instead with God's full acceptance of Gentiles as equal members of the family of God.
"I can sense how passionate you are about wanting me to acquiesce to FFOZ's preferred self-definition, but that simply isn't going to happen. Again, if over time the leaders of MJ embrace the ideas put forth by FFOZ, that is their choice to make. For now, given that they have not, I will continue to distinguish between the two."
ReplyDeleteCould you respond to this? I have shown you that this is not FFOZ's self-definition, but that the second-largest MJ organization publicly endorses them. This is not FFOZ's self-definition. It is definitive proof that MJ sees them as within their circle. They have made their choice. Their choice is, "FFOZ is a part of MJ." Likewise, the leaders of MJAA have, as of their most recent publication regarding FFOZ, "embraced their ideas." Your charge that the MJAA ought to write another update in light of what you're saying FFOZ believes is different than the actual statement that does so.
Regarding Proleptic Radial Ecclesiology, I've just provided other MJ (and non-MJ) authors who embrace and promote the same kind of model. Without them stating that those implications you believe are necessary to be a part of their understanding of how they would articulate this idea, it is presumptuous for you to say, "They believe that women, Gentiles, etc. will always be somehow unequal with Israelites." You are filling in blanks. Again, questions need to be asked. They also affirm that Gentiles are accepted as equal members of the family of God, but you're assuming that they either 1) deny that or 2) can't actually mean it because there are some pieces of their beliefs that you can't fit together. That's why I would maintain the charge that you're just seeing what you want to see and not engaging honestly, lovingly, or objectively with their views.
Since this idea is not sourced from FFOZ (but I guess you could say that they've popularized it and brought it to the mainstream), I again posit that you need to start taking issue with the theologians leading the MJ movement, some of whom you've quoted and referenced to buttress your position that FFOZ is somehow at odds with their theologies. There will of course be differences in how they understand certain things, but the more you're engaging with me here, the more apparent it is that the issues you're taking with FFOZ are part of MJ thought also held by others within organizations such as the UMJC, and theologians such as Mark Kinzer, David Rudolph, and Tony Eaton.
This might be helpful for you in getting a better understanding of what those within MJ understand "Messianic Judaism" to consist of. Based off what you've stated before about MJ and whether or not they should or should not endorse FFOZ, I'm guessing you haven't read this.
Deletehttps://centerforisrael.com/papers/messianic-judaism/
I've already responded to material from Gateway Center: https://youtu.be/-qnciWEXY5Q
DeleteThat’s good. Can you reply to the specific article I attached? It seems to agree with what I’m saying regarding what MJ believes (which FFOZ would be aligned with) while disagreeing with your position. Since you view Gateway as “orthodox” in their understanding, it seems worth the read. Also, concerningly (in your estimation if you’re being consistent) their main focus is the church! They also are a Gentile organization. They also teach that the Torah is not obsolete or replaced by the New Covenant (https://centerforisrael.com/papers/torah-observance/). So again, you might want to backtrack a bit and get a broader view of the MJ landscape before singling out FFOZ.
DeleteOh, yes, also curious to hear more about which of their leadership you understand to be Jewish and which you would qualify as Gentile? From engaging with your other things I've heard you dismiss Boaz Michael's claim to Jewish ethnicity, but haven't heard your full reasoning. Have you read his book "Tent of David"? Mostly curious to hear how you would engage with his explanation of his Jewish ethnicity there.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I know about his "other name" -- Christopher Detwiler.
DeleteI have made no definitive statement about why Boaz changed his name from Christopher or about his ethnic heritage. It is for the Jewish people themselves to decide who is, and who is not, Jewish. As regarding the leadership and focus of FFOZ, it appears to have been primarily Gentile in both respects from the beginning. There is nothing wrong with that, as long that is what you are presenting yourselves as.
DeleteOne of the claims you’ve made repeatedly, seemingly to undermine their legitimacy as a Messianic Jewish organization, is that most of the leadership are Gentiles. I’m just wondering how you arrived there. Did you have them fill out a survey or something? Haha
DeleteWhen the organization was founded its primary leaders were Christopher Detweiler, Tim Hegg, and Daniel Lancaster. Lancaster remains the primary author (responsible for the vast majority of materials). Since then they have added Jacob Fronczak (who spoke about his status as a Gentile in his book). This dynamic is self-evident and noteworthy.
DeleteChristopher Detwiler (Boaz Michael), by his own account, is ethnically Jewish. Tim Hegg, by his own account, is ethnically Jewish. Daniel Lancaster is very open about not being Jewish. Damian Eisner is Jewish. Aaron Eby is Jewish. Jacob Fronzcak is also not Jewish, and doesn't pretend to be. I'm sure there are others on staff who are also Jewish. So what is the point here? Are you saying that you want MJ to allow only Jews? That Jewish believers in Jesus are not allowed to mingle with Gentiles? Does leadership of MJ need to have only Jews? Or is it okay if they have one or two? Just trying to understand your line of reasoning here.
DeleteOh, and actually you did make a statement about Boaz's ethnic heritage, but maybe you wouldn't qualify it as "definitive"? I don't know. When you were asked whether or not Boaz Michael was even a "Jewish believer in Jesus," you stated, "No. Depending, well, that's a complicated question."
DeleteWould you care to elaborate on how a statement like that does not fall under making a "definitive statement" on the ethnicity of Boaz Michael? I've been wondering that ever since I watched the video.
This is the end of this conversation, I'll leave it with this: It isn't primarily my viewpoint being reflected there, but that of Jewish followers of Jesus who have expressed that concern, about the HRM in general and FFOZ in particular. MJ can minister to whomever comes through the door, that has nothing to do with it. It isn't up to me what constitutes a Jewish ministry or what it takes to be ethnically Jewish. That there are concerns on this front with respect to FFOZ is not a new insight nor is it one unique to me, I have not made it central to any of my rebuttals where the teaching is the focus. In hundreds of hours of work related to FFOZ that topic has come up only a handful of times. Whether or not one thinks of Boaz or FFOZ and has questions about that or not, it makes no difference, the teachings are the danger and they are soundly and consistently unorthodox and heretical...
DeleteGod bless.
Again, people coming to you with concerns doesn't mean that there is objective cause for concern. I am in relationship with people who would doubt your understanding of the Scriptures and your reliability as a pastor for marrying a Roman Catholic. If I started a blog centering around this aspect of your belief, I would have people reach out to me expressing their gratitude, asking for advice about how to tell people they know that they can't marry Roman Catholics, that Roman Catholics aren't believers, etc., similar to what's happening with you. No prominent organization within MJ has expressed concern about FFOZ.
Delete"It isn't up to me what constitutes a Jewish ministry..."
Yet you have, in this thread and elsewhere, refused to acknowledge FFOZ as a MJ organization, despite its public endorsement from MJ organizations.
"...or what it takes to be ethnically Jewish."
Yet you have rendered judgment about Boaz Michael's Jewish ethnicity. Brother, you need to take some time to realize that you're trying to play both sides of the ball here.
It may not be unique to you, but you have been the sole perpetuator of it, prior to you reaching out to Solberg and being platformed there. Maybe it hasn't been central, but it has been consistent, and is another one of those points used to cast dispersion on FFOZ in the eyes of those who are going to trust that you've done your due diligence and are painting the whole picture. Responding in the negative to the question of whether Boaz Michael is Jewish is slanderous. Stating that FFOZ is not a part of MJ implies that no entity in MJ knows about or owns them. That's also not true. Thus, your statements are objectively untrue. It's just bewildering to me that you cannot acknowledge that you are wrong regarding these two points. It seems that that gives some insight into what else is going on here on the heart-level.
Again, the teachings are not concerning when the nuance is included and presented as within what is accepted MJ doctrine/belief. In light of their overwhelming alignment with MJ doctrine (again, in regard to figures like Kinzer, Rudolph), I think you really need to start warning everyone of the dangers that exist within Messianic Judaism. I think what you'll find then, though, is that people will define the issues differently and much of the alarm will be subdued.
Truly, may God grant you insight to what He is doing through all those who call on His name, trust in Jesus Christ for salvation on the Day of Judgment, and seek to fulfill the Great Commission, including FFOZ.
Question: There are those who would include the JW and the LDS within the definition of Christianity. Must we accept that they speak for the whole? Even if the majority, even the vast majority, of Christians accepted what they teach, would it be any less heretical?
DeleteThere isn't an amount of goading that will cause me to shift my focus from FFOZ to MJ, whatever you're hoping to accomplish, that at least will fail.
I actually don’t want you to shift your focus to MJ, as I view MJ as a biblical, acceptable expression of faith in Christ (as you also do), but I am goading you to admit that you’ve been wrong. I have provided definitive, undeniable proof that one of your repeated “alarm bells” about FFOZ — that they are NOT a part of MJ — is categorically and irrefutably wrong. I don’t want you to agree with them; you need to listen to your conscience, and it’s good for you to hold to your interpretation of Scripture. By placing these facts before you as I have, though, I am offering you a chance to admit that you have been painting an incomplete picture of FFOZ by framing them as “not a part of MJ.” I was hopeful that simple ignorance was the reason this kept coming up as one of your issues with FFOZ. But this dialogue really seems to show that you’re not interested in facts (nor in changing even one aspect of your concern); you are only bent on completing your vendetta against them. It’s also become apparent that you’re out of your depth regarding theological and doctrinal differences between MJ and Evangelicalism/Protestantism.
DeleteSo, all I’m really hoping for is for you to start saying something more like this about FFOZ: “I have some strong personal concerns about FFOZ that are rooted in my understanding of the Word and what qualifies as biblical orthodoxy. My own research has led me to believe that they are in error in many ways, even in regards to non-negotiable aspects of the Christian faith. However, it’s also important for me, for the sake of being transparent and honest, to admit that this is quite complicated, as FFOZ as an organization is publicly endorsed by the second-largest MJ association in the world: the UMJC. While I feel Spirit-bound to share my concerns because of the damage I believe them to be doing, it’s also important to share this when speaking about them so that others who may have concerns can better understand where to place the issue.” This is about truth, honesty, and objectivity, brother. You have been wrong about this point, and as one who I believe cares deeply about truth, I am hopeful that you’ll come around soon to seeing it and submitting to it, rather than “kicking against the goad.”
The response has been given, please stop posting anonymously on my blog. I'll be happy to have a conversation with a person, but I've finished responding to an unknown entity. Further comments that appear to be from this same user will be deleted. You think your proof is irrefutable, but it is far from it, the point is received but it is not accepted, nor is any mandate to do what you say I must.
DeleteHere is Professor Solberg's analysis, as you can see he also finds serious issues at hand: https://youtu.be/UP9S7j9GGig?si=vfLHCH_ePyHwdUhQ
ReplyDeleteThanks for linking that. I hope that he looks at more than just a few passages and avoids filling in blanks! Looking forward to your response regarding UMJC’s public endorsement of FFOZ.
DeleteThe UMJC is an MJ organization, they are not the whole of MJ. As I've said elsewhere, the information in One Law Two Sticks (for example) is useful but not current...I'm not sure what you are looking for by continuing this line of thought. I don't agree that FFOZ is an accurate representation of MJ, they want to be known in that light, but I think that them doing so will be harmful to MJ.
DeleteIn the end, this isn't the key issue at hand. What FFOZ is teaching is what matters most, more than the way in which they are hoping to have it packaged.
Brother, no organization represents "the whole" of MJ. Yet your statements up to this point have not been, "There are some within in MJ who do not agree with FFOZ's teachings"; rather, they have been, "FFOZ is not a part of MJ." Your statements are not truthful in light of a MJ organization (again, second-largest!) publicly endorsing them. You may not agree that FFOZ is an accurate representation of MJ, but there are MJ organizations who do. So I guess it's nice of you to be concerned for MJ, but at the end of the day this isn't your call to make. Communicating to others that FFOZ is not a part of MJ despite public endorsement by an organization that is aligned with/promotes the theological leaders of MJ is just not true. This is where I'd again state that your issue is in fact with widely-held beliefs within broader MJ. In light of that, it's inaccurate to say that they're merely trying to package themselves as MJ. Rather, the UMJC (and, again, if we're going off evidence, the MJAA/IAMCS) see FFOZ as in their package. You can't keep saying that FFOZ is not a part of MJ if there are MJ organizations that endorse them.
DeleteI'll admit that my desire to protect MJ from being associated with FFOZ's false teaching has led me to continue to make the claim that they are HRM and not MJ more than I would have had that claim not so much potential to harm those who don't deserve that guilt-by-association. I think the claim is valid based upon the evidence that I have seen, but making it has a motive too.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you hoping for? That people view FFOZ and MJ as the same? You have already expressed doubt that there is much wrong with FFOZ's teachings (or at least that I'm being too hard on them), so perhaps you don't think the association would be harmful. I can't agree with that. I think that the work of FFOZ will crumble when brought out into the light and I don't want the repercussions of that to harm MJ.
No, I'm hoping that you will clarify that respected and influential voices in MJ view FFOZ as promoting what they're about. I'm saying that many of the issues you have with FFOZ are in fact beliefs held by the MJ theologians and leaders that you're setting up as being opposed to FFOZ. (Your dig on Proleptic Radial Ecclesiology being just one example.) Now I'll also add that much of what you understand the beliefs of FFOZ to be are incorrect or imbalanced. So to apply the erroneous conclusions you've come to about FFOZ to MJ would be problematic. But if you were to realize (and stop resisting) the following:
ReplyDelete- FFOZ is in good standing with prominent and influential MJ organizations
- MJ is not evangelicalism
- You're misunderstanding much of what FFOZ is pushing for
then I think a lot of your problems would clear up and you wouldn't have to keep trying to be MJ's caretaker. Their silence (or public endorsement!) on the matter is their answer. These efforts of yours are likely to lead to one of two things: 1) Evangelical pastors (like the ones in this letter) to dig into MJ and realize that they don't agree with it, and thus, damage MJ or 2) get them to just continue blindly trusting your conclusions without looking into it for themselves and continue wreaking havoc on the unity, brotherly love, and oneness that Christ has died to purchase for all those who have faith in His name.
This conversation has reached its conclusion. I've offered up the answers to your questions. You've made a judgement about the relationship between FFOZ and MJ and so have I...That you continue to insist that I don't understand FFOZ is further reason to bring this discussion to a close. I have offered examples after example of what they teach, it stands on its own...Pastors will watch the videos, or read the blog, look at what is FFOZ is saying and my response to it, they are capable of weighing the evidence and seeing if it is sufficient to reach the conclusions. You think it isn't, I do. That other pastors and theologians also see this danger is at least some evidence that I'm not saying it is raining when the sun is shining.
DeleteGod bless.
If you are willing to have an offline conversation rather than an anonymous one I'd be willing to continue, otherwise I have offered my responses, they appear to be insufficient for you, if you have concerns my number isn't hard to find.
DeleteThat's fine. I do have concerns, but thus far you are not willing to receive them or answer them directly (as far as I see). May God grant you humility, charity, and peace as you engage with this, and may He stem the damage that your efforts here have contributed to making.
DeleteSpeak to me offline without being anonymous so we can have a conversation.
DeleteI actually think it's important to have the conversation here so that it can be seen by others. My words are here for anyone to read (along with your responses), and with that I'm happy. It just gives people an opportunity to see how you respond when you have facts that don't align with your agenda put in front of you.
DeleteMight be good to take your own advice here in light of FFOZ being owned by MJ and you not knowing any of them personally.
Deletehttps://pastorpowellsponderings.blogspot.com/2017/07/once-again-rushing-to-judgment-leads-to.html
This was really good. But even at the end, it was interesting to see that you were a bit quick to rush to the defense of someone that you hadn't done all of the research on. Good, true biblical lessons here. Seems like it would be good to revisit this and ask the Lord how to continue growing in its application.
I'm impressed that you've spent this much time on my blog reading old posts, but as I said previously, this dialogue can't move forward anonymously. When you claim someone has ignored "facts" because of an "agenda" the time for comments without accountability has reached its end. I've put my name behind my analysis, you have every opportunity to reach out to me privately. Until then we are finished.
Delete