Making sense of Messianic Judaism

In case anyone has any problem understanding Messianic Judaism, especially when trying to sort out all the different ideas and such being bandied around in the name of the said movement, here's a good post by Rabbi Derek Leman.

“Messianic Judaism” is a catch-all for a vague and general idea that attracts millions: the Jewish cultural context of the Bible virtually ignored in Christendom for millennia. Millions of Christians of all stripes and persuasions, from the Catholic and Orthodox Christian world to the Protestant, Evangelical, and Charismatic world are hungry to know more about Jesus the Rabbi. ... But many “Messianic Jewish” groups are simply Christians confused about who they are, who Israel is, and what God is doing in these times with his people Israel.

He goes on to list a few of the extremes, such as the "Two House" movement (the idea that all European Christians are probably descended from the 10 lost tribes, and therefore ought to be living kosher), those who view the traditional church as a pagan counterfit of what was meant to be the church, those who believe all believers need to be Torah observant, and more. Anyone who, like me, has tried to learn about Messianic Judaism by trying to read through the trail of web pages and chat room strings, will recognise them all.

At least I'm glad to have come across Derek's blog some time ago. Here's his own take on it, which I fully support:

Messianic Judaism at the core is about Jews and Gentiles who come alongside these Jews to be part of God’s work in the remnant of Israel. We believe that God is calling Jewish people to faith in Messiah within Judaism. ... Messianic Judaism is not an alternative to the Church. Messianic Judaism is a movement within Judaism formed by God and expressing in word and deed a Jewish faith in Yeshua.

Anyway, have a read yourself...

Political situation in Bangkok

A friend in Northern Ireland who works for a newspaper, asked me to send him a bit on what's happening here in Bangkok. The following is what I sent:

My dad left Bangkok on Tuesday, on the 13:45 Thai International Airways flight for London. I had to be at work, so I couldn't see him to the airport, but I got a phone call from him shortly before boarding time. All was well. He had taken a taxi to the airport, which is not far from our house.

My worst fear was that employees of all the state enterprises had planned to go on strike on Tuesday in support of the Democracy protest, and in retaliation for a bomb that had gone off at the government house (occupied by the protestors) killing one and injuring a few others. I didn't know if Thai International Airways was one of the enterprises that would be affected by the strike, so I had advised my dad to leave the house earlier, so as to ensure that he would be checked in, in case there were problems (long lines, etc.). There was no problem. He boarded, and they took off.

Probably while his plane was somewhere over Central Asia or someplace, I had put Abie to bed, and had actually fallen asleep, my mobile (which I use for an alarm clock) signaled that I had a text message. I use the service of one of the local English newspapers whereby they text the major headlines to my phone. I never get a text so late at night, but the text read that the airport had been closed, due to the protesters blocking the enterances. That was a bit disconserting. I was very glad my dad had left when he did, but apparently, about 10,000 other travellers weren't so fortunate.

As I said, we live close to the airport -- in fact, right under the flight path. It's cold season (Thai winter, making it feel like summer in Ireland), so the wind blows from the North, so the aeroplanes take off over our house this time of year, making it very noisy. That's been one of our major complaints about the house we're currently renting. However, for the last two days, it's been very peaceful!

However, we're not close enough to the airport to notice any activities or hear explosions or anything like that. The school where I teach (and Abie attends) is close by. Everyone just talks about it -- that's all.

Since sending the above to my friend, our school anounced that because we're in the emergency area, there would be no school the next day (Friday). At this moment (Saturday), we are down at my wife's parents' place. I hope school is back on on Monday.

Coming Soon...

Pepe has been through most of it's rounds of edits and rewrites, and I'm glad to say, is still very much the story I originally envisioned. The publisher has still to proof it one more time, and then format it to be ready for release.

In the mean time, I thought I'd spruce up this page a bit, as it will soon begin to double as an author's home page.

The Case for Protestantism

I've posted comments on this blog sometime ago, casting the Catholic Church in a facourable light, in particular, quoting Alan Creech on his return to the Roman fold. It's evident that the Holy Spirit does lead some to join the mother church, in spite of some factors that Catholics such as Alan Creech willingly share which tend to be on the negative side.

I have my own reasons for not joining. First, I haven't felt the leading of the Holy Spirit to become a Roman Catholic, nor an Eastern Orthodox. Despite many of my pro-Jewish, pro-rabbinical views, I have also not felt the leading to convert to Judeaism (even as a Messianic Jew). I apply Paul's advice to remain as one is, to both issues. I'm a "goy" from my mother's womb, and I remain a non-protesting Protestant.

Some of my reasons for not joining the Catholic Church are probably the same reasons I wouldn't join the Anglecan or the Reformed churches -- nor even Baptist. For one thing, I'm not a follower of Augustine (a fine saint, a shining testamony of faith, but I don't follow him in all of his theology which has formed a basis for both Roman Catholic and Reformed doctrine). Also, my perception of what is a minister, rather inhibits me from joining a group that has such a long tradition of elevating the clergy above the laity.

I also find that some of my reasons for not being a Catholic are the same as Scot McKnight's. Here is a very well written essay as to why he isn't Roman Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox. It's a very good testimonial on behalf of Protestantism, without being anti-Catholic (I hope it's understood that one can be critical without being 'anti-')

Anyway, here it is...

Does Grace Cancel Holiness?

Rabbi Derek Leman has a good post, actually a repost from last year's Yom Kippor.

He opens with this:

I was reading the blog of a well-respected Christian intellectual who holds a high-visibility post in Christian media. He espoused an idea I hear sometimes which troubles me greatly: that grace means we should be realistic and not expect too much holiness in Christendom as a whole. That is, we should not be surprised when we hear surveys showing that Christians are no different than non-Christians in areas like marriage, sexual sin, and so on.

I hadn't actually heard anyone in Church leadership come out and say that, but that seems to be the trend of the Western church of the 20th century. Rabbi Derek's post is deffinately worth a read.

I could only add, people mistake grace for mercy. Mercy is what's been holding back G-d's hand of judgment on the Western Church for not taking advantage of grace. Grace is there to enable us to become holy. Proper use of mercy is to seek forgiveness when we fail.

RobbyMac on Apologies

RobbyMac has put out a creative piece entitled Apology at OK Corral. He deals with the fact that:

"...so many people apologize, and immediately say 'forgive me'. And, maybe this will sound a little weird, but sometimes it feels like they ask for forgiveness as a way of not really dealing with the damage they've caused."

He calls this "'Apology At Gunpoint'; where if you don't 'forgive and forget' immediately, you become the problem."

He's not down on apologies -- just the fake ones that we all tend to do just a little more often than we should.

The Future of Ebooks

Articles like this make me feel good about the fact that my novel is being published by an electronic media publisher. It's a rebuttal by Alexander Wolfe to a statement by Ray Bradbury that ebooks will never take off.

I found it via Website At the End of the Universe in which Capt. Zerox has more things to say on the subject:

I think both ebooks and paper books both have a future. Neither media is going to replace the other, just like movies weren't replaced by television, but I can foresee a time that people read the news or the latest bestseller on some low-cost, portable electronic reader that mimics analog books.

An earlier post of his even says, Publishers wonder whether ebooks have reached critical mass.

However, at this point, we're still making plans that fit strictly with our current income from teaching school, plus faith in the Most High. I've been burned too often by pinning my hopes on something that hasn't actually materialised yet.