How have the Torah Clubs responded to the united warning of the Franklin Christian Ministerium?

The Franklin Christian Ministerium released its warning against the Torah Clubs and the First Fruits of Zion on February 16th, of 2023, along with a detailed listing of primary source quotations illustrating our concerns {Now updated to include further damning quotations from the Malchut 2022 Conference: The Unorthodox Beliefs of the First Fruits of Zion.  If you're read the previous version, it will be worth you time to see the new quotes too}.  We shared this information with every church in the county and with our own congregations and networks.  I have had many conversations, as have other pastors, with fellow men and women serving in pastoral leadership about this topic, both before the ministerium's statement and after.

Some may be wondering what the response has been, officially or otherwise, from either the First Fruits of Zion organization, the local Torah Clubs leaders, or any individuals that are/were participating in this.

1. There has been no response from the First Fruits of Zion organization.  

We do not know whether they are aware of our objections to their false teaching or not, but given that this organization's leadership believes that it is ordained by God to overturn the global Church (seriously, they believe their effort will bring about the End Times, no less), it would not be unusual for those with such lofty self conceptions to take attempts at correction from the established (traditional, apostolic, biblical) Church as a sign that they're on the right path.

2. There has been no response, directly to the ministerium, from the leadership of the local Torah Clubs.

We have not seen any effort to correct, supposedly, false impressions or conclusions (hard to do that when we shared twenty pages of direct quotes as evidence) about this movement or its theology addressed to either the ministerium as a whole, or individual pastoral leaders.  Having been called out publicly by an ecumenical representation of the Church for rejecting historic and apostolic orthodoxy, no direct response has been forthcoming. 

It has been noted that local Torah Club leaders have shared on social media that they are being "persecuted" by a few local church pastors, and claims have been made of support by many church leaders in this, although none to my knowledge have publicly defended this theology, but none of these online conversations have been directed at us.  Along those lines, there have been various things shared via social media equating the local Torah Club leaders with Martin Luther {ironic given the antipathy of the FFOZ toward the Protestant Reformation: Rethinking the Five Solae, a book they have published claiming that the roots of Protestant theology are the cause of antisemitism}, and presumably the Franklin Ministerium with the Catholic authorities that opposed him.  As a Baptist minister, I find it odd that an organization that condemns Sola Scriptura, would have local leaders quoting Martin Luther's famous, "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in the councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience is captive to the Word of God." 

3. When it comes to individual Torah Club participants, we have reason to hope.

Thankfully, I have not had anyone in my congregation fall prey to this movement, some of my fellow servants of Christ have not been so fortunate.  While the local leadership remains, as far as we can tell, defiant of orthodoxy, Church history, and local pastors' pleadings, we have seen some of those participating take a step away from the organization after hearing of our objections.  I can only share anecdotal observations, but those have typically followed the pattern of someone with an already existing relationship being key.  This is not a surprise, for all the bluster of punditry and online arguments that take place today, few people actually change their minds on important topics due to them.  What does affect people, as it always has, is relationships.  So pray for the Christians in our community that have relationships with Torah Club participants, may they act with wisdom and compassion when attempting to help those who have wandered from the Gospel.

4. How should we then pray for those influenced by the Torah Clubs?

We need your prayers.  As a local Christian community we always need the support of prayer, this is no exception.  Pray that those who have strayed from orthodoxy, {as most were previously deeply committed Christian believers, that's who FFOZ purposefully targets} will see the light of Truth and be given the grace of God to return to their first belief.  Pray that pride and stubbornness would be vanquished, that previous fellowship with a local church will prove the stronger.  And yes, pray for the local leaders of the Torah Clubs, as I have, should they return to orthodoxy from this error it would have a profound affect upon so many others.  

Thank you for supporting your local church pastor, we need it and appreciate it more than our words of gratitude can convey.

Is it my job to police the communion line?

 

The meme above has been bouncing around social media as a response to a recent vote (168 to 55, Abortion rights: US Catholic bishops face clash with Biden - BBC news) by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  The USCCB is attempting to provoke a showdown with Catholic politicians with whom they disagree, in this case on the issue of the legality of abortion, by potentially denying them the Eucharist (i.e. Communion).  This move is opposed by the Vatican, and unlikely to ever be enacted and/or enforced, but it raises an important question that reverberates outside of the Catholic Church as well (as evidenced, in part, by the above response from a gay Anglican priest in Toronto, of course on social media everyone seems to have a 'dog in the fight').  As an ordained American Baptist pastor, is it my job to watch the communion line?  {prior to COVID we passed the elements down each aisle with ushers, since then we've been coming up front one family at a time to take them from the altar, a practice we will likely continue post-pandemic; so technically there is a 'line' now}

Some background for those of you unfamiliar with how communion works in your typical baptist church (whether or not they belong to a denomination).  For us, the ordinance (the fancy word we use when we need to use a fancy word) of communnion  is not a question of transubstantiation or consubstantiation.  In other words, it isn't a question of whether or not the bread and wine are tranformed into the body and blood of Christ, however one chooses to describe it (that was the heart of the argument that led to the Reformation, and eventually people killed and were killed over the issue during the Thirty Years War.  {See: What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History, part 3 at the bottom of the page}  For a quick primer on the various Christian views of communion: Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or Something Else? Roman Catholic vs. Protestant Views of the Lord’s Supper - Zondervan Academic blog.  

Most baptists would agree with Huldrych Zwingli that communion is a memorial, with some leaning toward the view of John Calvin that the ordinance does invoke the spiritual presence of Jesus, albiet in a way significantly short of that embraced by the Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans.  That being said, as an American Baptist minister, when I preside over communion (which we do once a month, typically on the 1st Sunday unless I'm not here, then it gets bumped to the 2nd) I normally say, "We here at 1st Baptist celebrate open communion, by that we mean that if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you are free to join us if you choose."  Those words don't come from a book, or denominational HQ (that's not how things work when you're a 'low liturgy' baptist, each church/pastor decides many such for him/herself), they simply reflect what we believe, and when I remember to say them, they're an invitation to any visitors or relatively new people.  Morever, after I say the prayer (again, extemporaneously given) it has been my habit (learned from the independent baptist pastor, James Frank, who led my family church for 40 years) to simply close my eyes, bow my head, and spend the time until everyone is ready receiving the element(s) to pray.  The end result?  I don't know who is participating in any given week.  I don't know if a particular individual in my church skips communion on occasion, or regularly.  My thoughts on this matter mirror my thoughts about the offering.  When the plate is being passed (in the COVID era we just left it in the back, and that seems likely to continue) I don't look to see if anyone is putting something in or not.  The point with both is that the decision to participate (or give) is between that person and God.

As baptists we believe in the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.  Long story short, my role as pastor doesn't set me apart from the congregation, we all partake of the same Holy Spirit, we all are held to the same standards of conduct and service.  Using Paul's analogy of the body of Christ, we are all a necessary part.  This has numerous implications, one of which is the elevation of one's own responsibility before God (not to the level that it negates collective church discipline when necessary), particularly in matters of conscience.

Which brings us back around to communion.  Paul, writing to the church at Corinth about the Lord's Supper said this, 

1 Corinthians 11:26-32 New International Version

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

The key phrases here are: "in an unworthy manner" (vs. 27), and "Everyone ought to examine themselves" (vs. 28).  Given these instructions, it seems to us (as baptists) that it isn't up to a church officer (be he/she a deacon, pastor, bishop, or any other title) to decide who is, or is not, worthy of participating in the Lord's Supper.  Those who do so 'in an unworthy manner', perhaps by doing so with irreverance or with unconfessed sin between him/her and God, will be judged by God himself, not by me.

Lastly, Rev. Daniel and I probably disagree about a lot of things theologically speaking, but I certainly echo his final statement above, "What if somebody 'unworthy' receives it?"  "Uh, that would be everybody."  Our approach to the table is always an act of grace for known but Christ is worthy, our acceptance of the bread (body) and cup (blood) is always an act of grace for our sins doom us otherwise, no matter what we undertand the bread and wine to be.  At any given church service, at any kind of church, there are those who ought to abstain from participation until they confess their sins and repent, and there are those who are just going through the motions due to either unbelief or complacency.  In the end, seperating the 'sheep from goats' isn't my job, thanks be to God for that.

Friendly Fire? Why examination and censure by Christians belongs primarily on us, not them

I have been asked variations of this question, "Why all the focus on Christians?"  (Or conservatives, evangelicals, Republicans).  And while for some people, there tends to be a blind spot or rose colored glasses regarding those like themselves, that is a flaw that Christians cannot afford to indulge.  So then, if I interact more with the words and actions, including criticizing them, of pastors than lay people, that's purposeful.  When I focus more upon baptists, evangelicals, or conservatives, that's in part because of familiarity and the ability to understand where they're coming from and 'speak the language', but also partly an intentional choice.  The same holds true on the larger categories, with more focus upon Americans than the rest of the world, and more focus upon Protestants than Catholic or Orthodox Christians.  From time to time an idea put forth by, for example, a British liberal atheist may be significant enough (for better or for worse) to merit a response, but those on the outside of Christianity, while remaining the focus of evangelistic efforts, are purposefully not the primary audience of my preaching or teaching (nor by extension, of this blog).  Why?

1 Timothy 4:6 New International Version (NIV)
If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 New International Version (NIV)

24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 New International Version (NIV)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Jude 3 New International Version (NIV)
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

1. The example of Scripture.
The book of Jonah is a prime example.  While the purpose of the book is ostensibly the journey of one of God's prophets to condemn the wanton immorality of the people of Nineveh, as the story unfolds it becomes evident that the real problem is not with the godless Ninevites, but with the prophet himself, who does not want God to show mercy to the enemy of his people.  Likewise, when reading the Gospel accounts one discovers that while Jesus certainly called all people to repentance, it was only the self-righteous Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-36),corrupt Sanhedrin (Matthew 21:12-13), and the people from near his hometown who had witnessed his many miracles but rejected him (Matthew 11:20-24) to whom he responded with anger or scorn.  When examining the Hebrew Scriptures, it is certainly possible to find God's anger directed at Sodom and Gomorrah, Egypt, or the Canaanites (whom he commanded Joshua to wipe out), but the vast majority of the prophetic utterances are issued against the failure of God's own Covenant people to obey the Law of Moses.  God does not forget the immorality of those who have not seen his wonders or heard his Word, but the focus of Scripture remains squarely upon God's chosen people, whether in the Old Covenant or the New.

2. Am I not my brother's keeper?
In Genesis 3:9, Cain famously asks, "Am I my brother's keeper?"  The answer to that question is, yes.  The Church of Jesus Christ is one body (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-30), and while we have individual congregations and separate denominations, what is going on in other parts of the body of Christ affects us all.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon those called to shepherd the various flocks in God's pasture, that we be on the lookout for wolves, even if they are not targeting our flock directly.  Likewise, the integrity and reputation of the Church as a whole, and all those who make up its many parts, is of concern to all of us.   Dangerous ideas within the body of Christ are a cancer, if left unchecked they will spread.  The great Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church offer us an example as they brought together leading Church authorities from across the Roman Empire (and beyond) to by consensus condemn with one voice the heresies denying the deity and humanity of Jesus.  In our much more divided global Church, it would be impossible to duplicate their unanimity (316 out of 318 bishops voted in favor of the Council of Nicaea's decree), but the example of contending together for the sake of the purity of the Gospel and the health of the Church remains for us to emulate. 

3. The Gospel I preach is affected by the Gospel preached by others.
When the true Gospel is preached from any pulpit, we all benefit, and when a false gospel is spread, we all suffer.  It is not the duty of the Lost to make a distinction between Steven Anderson's Faithful Word Baptist Church in Phoenix, AZ and that of Pastor Randy Powell's First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA.  It would make my life easier if nobody gave credence to ministers who spread heresy or who are in this profession to seek wealth and fame, let alone those who will eventually be caught in a sex scandal, but it is certainly not a realistic expectation.  I have been asked, "What's the connection between your church and Westboro Baptist?" (Topeka, KS)  Fortunately, there is no direct connection, but the prominent use of the name Baptist in every story about that church's protests at the funerals of fallen American soldiers is a stain that all of us who share the name must bear.  {A similar burden falls upon our Catholic brothers and sisters following the child sex abuse scandal, although that shame has since spread to other denominations too.}
Like it or not, the world connects us to the charlatans, whether they be fake faith healers, those telling their audience that God wants them to have a private jet (naturally connected to the request for $), the outright heretics, and those simply consumed with hatred (wrongly) in God's name.  Thus, for the sake of the Gospel mission, a "Christian" minister preaching death to homosexuals or a holy war against Islam is far more dangerous than a secular humanist praising abortion or a Muslim Jihadist preaching "Death to America!".

4. I hold us to a higher standard (as does God).
Those who are Lost, who are enmeshed in the world's false promises can be expected to live their lives by a moral code that falls short of the Law of God.  This is not unexpected, nor is it even correctable as those who live outside of the Covenant do not have the Spirit of God to empower them.  The best of those living apart from God seek to follow a noble morality while falling short as all people do, while the worst embrace the rebellion of hedonism and narcissism.  The people of God, however, are called to a higher standard.  The Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) being a monumental way to live, and one certainly only within our grasp through both God's power and his grace, nevertheless it is this very standard of Christ-like behavior by which we must judge both ourselves and the rest of our fellow Christians.
What about, "Judge not lest ye be judged?"  This oft misunderstood passage (Matthew 7:1-5) ends with this key thought, "and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."  It is not the suspension of all judgment, as if each individual Christian is an island unto him/herself, which would not fit well at all with Paul's vision of the members of the Church as part of the same body, but rather a strong warning against judgment that is not self-aware and thus hypocritical.  As I was told many years ago, before you preach a sermon, preach it to yourself first.  I certainly do not claim to be entirely free of the faults that infect the body of Christ, nor even of the ones that I have pointed out over the years when refuting the actions/words of others, but imperfect vessels are the only type of preacher that Christ has to work with, and we must hold ourselves, our congregations, and the Church as a whole to a higher standard.

5. There is ample criticism, already, of the immorality of the world from a variety of Christian sources.
One of the additional reasons why I spend less time railing against the 'godless abortion providers' or the 'Hollywood heathens' (to pick two random ones among the many potential targets) is that those topics are already being covered many times over by voices that represent, rightly or wrongly, Christianity .  At some point, this criticism becomes counter-productive, sounding in the ears of the Lost like the condescension of the Pharisees toward the "tax collectors and 'sinners'", rather than Jesus' compassionate "Go now, and leave your life of sin."  In the end, those who need Jesus will more often be swayed by Christians living morally upright lives who build personal bonds with them out of genuine compassion, than they will by fiery denouncements from the pulpit.  There is a time and a place for pronouncements from God's Word against the World, but for many Christians it has become to central a focus.

6. A common worldview is the ground upon which my reasoning stands.
The vast majority of my appeals are based upon the assumption that those reading my words hold the Word of God as authoritative over their lives.  I am capable of arguing from the perspective of moral philosophy, i.e. aiming at the common good necessary for a civil society to function, but that is not the heart of either my own reasoning nor my exhortations.  When I appeal to fellow Christians it is on the basis of a shared history, a common bond in Christ, and a fundamental willingness (hopefully) to accept that God's Word is the final arbiter when we disagree.  If I say, "The Word of God says", what is that to one who does not believe in God?  There is thus a presupposition in all of my thinking that is built upon Martin Luther's "Sola Scriptura", and where that presupposition is not shared my potential for persuasiveness will be inherently less.  It is certainly possible, and frequently a reality, that those who likewise value the Word of God as the final authority will disagree with a position that I hold, and vice versa.  This does not negate the commonality of our shared worldview, and isn't even necessarily a negative provided that neither of us are adhering to an immoral position, as it does still offer us the ability to stand upon the same foundation, share the same motivations, and ultimately seek the same goal of advancing the Gospel and glorifying our Father in Heaven. 

7. The doer of the thing does not affect the morality of the thing.
Motivation aside, evil is still evil, truth is still truth, and compassion is still compassion, no matter who the person is that is responsible for it.  When Christians commit acts of evil or distorts the truth, the consequences are real.  The fact that we're forgiven because of God's grace has an obvious impact upon our eternal disposition regarding these acts, but it doesn't mitigate the impact of that immorality upon the world around us here and now.
In the end, that which is morally upright for a Christian is morally upright for a non-Christian, and that which is sinful/evil when done by a Christian is sinful/evil when done by a non-Christian as well.  How these actions are judged by God in eternity will certainly be affected by the relationship (or lack) that each person has with God, for those who are redeemed will be clothed with the righteousness of Christ and those who are not cannot please God with their own righteousness.  That being said, in our world here and now, the morality of an action is not materially affected by whether or not the hero or villain of the tale is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or atheist.  To use an example from recent history: It is equally dangerous for the sake of our republic when President Trump is called Hitler by liberals as it is when Speaker Pelosi is called Hitler by conservatives.  However, for the sake of the Gospel, and the integrity of the Church, if either of those speakers, whether liberal or conservative, is claiming to be a Christian, there is an additional concern, and one that concerns me even more as an ordained minister than the negative impact of such behavior on America, namely the negative impact upon Christ's Church.

Sermon Video: The Dark Side of Church Leadership - 3 John 9-14

Having commended Gaius for showing hospitality to the missionaries/teachers that the Apostle John had sent, John next turns his attention to that same church's leader, Diotrephes, who rather than being cooperative has allowed his ego to warp him into opposition toward the work of the Gospel.  Here we see what happens when those in leadership in the Church embrace immorality, a "my way or the highway" mentality, or a "win at all costs" mantra.  The destruction such leadership can threaten the very life of a local church.  It is unacceptable for any disciple of Jesus Christ to "walk in darkness" rather than exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, but when it comes from those in authority the consequences can be far reaching.  In the end, there is no room in Church leadership for dictators or egomaniacs, no space for immoral and unethical people, for the Bride of Christ's reputation must not be besmirched on this way, and the work of the Gospel is far to important to be squandered by the sinfulness of God's people.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Wolves in Sheep's clothing - 2 John 7-13

Having established the need for the Christian community to be united by love in the truth of the Gospel (in vs. 1-6), the Apostle John concludes his short letter with a serious warning about the danger of heretics/apostates who have abandoned that truth and who now expound a different, lesser, version of Jesus Christ.  In the first century, that lesser version was typically a denial of the humanity of Jesus (Docetism, a manifestation of Greek Gnosticism), only different in its choice of what to reject from the account of the Apostles in the Scriptures than the post-modern materialistic denial of the deity of Jesus (often as part of an overall denial of the spiritual realm in its entirety).  However it comes about, such a rejection of the Gospel, for rejection it is indeed when the foundation of who Jesus is has been abandoned, cannot be tolerated in the Church.  John goes so far as to insist that these false teachers be denied even a shared meal, lest their teachings infect others and lead them astray.  Without opening ourselves up to the over-reaction of judgmental legalism (ostracism and denying fellowship over non-foundation matters), we must then follow suit and likewise protect the purity of the Gospel for the next generation, just as those Christians to whom John wrote protected it for their children, and on and on until it came to us.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Don't call yourself a Christian if... 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

Bringing the discussion regarding sexual immorality to a close, the Apostle Paul reminds the church at Corinth that his previous instructions to avoid sexually immoral people was not meant as a restriction on those outside the church, but only on those inside who claim to be a Christian but who continue to live in immorality.  Paul also broadens the application of this principle beyond sexual immorality to include any other type of immorality to which a professing "Christian" might be enslaved.  In the end, the people of God must be holy, a righteous people (by the grace of God), who cannot tolerate ongoing immorality in their midst.  In closing out the topic, Paul reminds the church that it is not their job to judge those outside the church (for God will do that), but those inside.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The Church:Cleaning our own house.

In the finale to a three-part message on 1 Corinthians 5 regarding sexually immorality within the Church that I will be preaching next week, Paul explains the necessity for the Church of expelling from their fellowship those who claim to be Christians, but who remain mired in immorality.  While beginning preparation for next week's message I was reading the commentary of Adam Clarke (1832) on vs. 9-13.  At the conclusion of the passage, Clarke wrote this:

If all the fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, extortioners, and covetous persons which bear the Christian name, were to be publicly excommunicated from the Christian Church, how many, and how awful would the examples be! If however the discipline of the visible Church be so lax that such characters are tolerated in it, they should consider that this is no passport to heaven. In the sight of God they are not members of his Church; their citizenship is not in heaven, and therefore they have no right to expect the heavenly inheritance. It is not under names, creeds, or professions, that men shall be saved at the last day; those alone who were holy, who were here conformed to the image of Christ, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Those who expect it in any other way, or on any other account, will be sadly deceived.

How many, how awful, would such an expulsion be?  That is indeed a sobering thought.  How many people would be left in the Church if those still living in immorality but claiming His name (not those who do not yet believe, nor claim to) were told they must leave the fellowship of God's people until such time as they had repented of their sins?  

The important question for the Church is this: How do we build a holy people, a people dedicated to living in Christ-like discipleship, if some in our midst are intent upon pulling us in the opposite direction through their continual choice of sin?  This was a problem that plagued the history of Israel in the Old Testament, and one that is certainly not new for the Church either.  Let us pray that those who claim the name of Christ, falsely, will see the folly of their ways, will be convicted by the Holy Spirit, and will repent, for the Church's task in the world is too vital to be diluted by in-name-only Christians.

Sermon Video: Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love? 1 Corinthians 4:14-21

Nobody enjoys being corrected, but it is an absolutely necessary part of life, spiritual life being no exception.  Paul had ample reason to bring corrective discipline to bear on the people of the church of Corinth, and yet he chose to do so with a fatherly warning instead of public shaming.  Paul recognized the ineffective nature of using shame against a rebellious heart, focusing instead upon warning them in love.  That Paul eschewed using shame is not an indication that he wasn't serious about the discipline that was needed, in fact, Paul told the people of Corinth that his approach to them would be determined by how they responded to his letter of warning.  If the people accept the warning, he will be able to come to them in gentle love when he visits, but if they refuse to cede their pride to the authority of God's Word, Paul will instead be forced to visit them with the "whip" of tough love.  In the end, what matters is keeping the people of God on the path of holiness, if gentle persuasion works, all the better, if not, love will have to get tough.

To watch the video, click on the link below: